AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....man and the Deputy Manager. Appeals before the lower appellate authority were preferred against the common order-in-original dated 26-9-2001 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-II. The primary order confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 1,79,522/- apart from interest and penalty of an equivalent amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) and penalties of Rs. 1,000/- each on two officials of the appellant. 2. The appellant was a manufacturer of polyester/viscose yarn, alleged to have short remitted Central Excise duty of the specified amount, during April 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice dated 27-3-2001 invoking the extended period of limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Form No. E.A.-3 of the Rule 6) it is stated that the appeal is preferred against the penalty imposed under Section 11AC and that relief claimed in the appeal is for deletion of penalty imposed under Section 11AC. In the statement of facts set out in the memorandum of appeal however, it is broadly asserted that the appellant is aggrieved by non-consideration of its plea that in the facts and circumstances invocation of the extended period of limitation or imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, was wrong and illegal. Similarly, ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal asserts a generic challenge that the appellate Commissioner erred in not holding that the whole proceedings were barred by limitation. 6. By an earlier order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) must be understood to mean that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence of otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the Section, once the Section is applicable in a case, the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A. The Supreme Court set aside the order of this Tribunal dated 24-3-2006 and remitted the same for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment (emphasis is added). 9. We therefore dispose of this appeal afresh but within the ambit of the issues releg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred the appeal only against imposition of penalty under Section 11AC; and not against assessment to Excise duty. This inference we legitimately draw from the Memorandum of Appeal; the earlier order dated 24-3-2006 which had recorded that the appeal is preferred against the penalty component and the fact that the appellant did not challenge the correctness of this Tribunals order dated 24-3-2006 on a ground that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate upon the validity of confirmation of its duty liability, by the primary Authority and the appellate Commissioner. 12. The conditions precedent stipulated by the relevant provisions of the Act for invocation of extended period of limitation (for initiating proceedings for levy of duty) and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner (Appeals) (impugned) clearly and categorically recorded a finding that the appellant suppressed material facts to the Department; that the extended period of limitation was thus rightly invoked; that the show cause notice is not hit by limitation period; and the liability to Duty was correctly assessed by the primary Authority after legitimately invoking the extended period of limitation. Since the relevant ingredients for such invocation stand established and concluded on analyses of the factual matrix on record. This finding is a finding on facts, of the appellant's conduct, legitimising invocation of the extended period (for initiation of proceedings), and this conclusion as to the appellant's conduct per se establishes t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o vigore; and are not unfertilised orders, which require ratification for operative efficacy. 17. In the case on hand, the show cause notice dated 27-3-2001 alleged suppression of material facts and short remittance of duty with an intent to evade the same. This allegation was the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation, under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The proceedings culminated in the primary adjudication order which confirmed levy of the specified quantum of deficit Excise duty. An unsuccessful appeal against the primary order resulted in confirmation of the duty. The appellate Authority recorded clear reasons and conclusions, as to suppression of material facts by the appellant justifying invocation o....