TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents of Section 11AC are present, the equivalent mandatory penalty has to be imposed irrespective of the fact whether payment of part/full duty has been made prior to issue of SCN. This being the position of law, whether the second respondent-Tribunal is right in not considering the issue that payment of duty prior to issuance of show cause notice would not absolve the first respondent from penalty when the evasion was unearthed only after the visit of the officers of the appellant-Department? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in holding that there has been no suppression on the part of the first respondent regarding manufacture of dutiable goods when the same has been clearly established i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tured and cleared during the period from March 1997 to January 1998 should not be demanded under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act; (b) an amount of Rs. 5,00,696/- already paid by them should not be adjusted towards the said amount of duty; (c) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules; and (d) interest on the amount so determined should not be demanded from them under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. After due process of law, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed Order dated 30-4-2004 confirming an amount of Rs. 7,19,538/- towards duty under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act and ordered adjustment of Rs. 5,00,696/- already paid by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty has been made prior to issuance of show cause notice and while so, the Tribunal was not right in holding that payment of duty prior to issuance of show cause notice would absolve the 1st respondent from penalty when the evasion was found out only after the visit of the Officers of the appellant-Department. 6. The learned counsel for 1st respondent submitted that the duty liability to the extent of Rs. 5,00,696/- has been conceded by the assessee and that the demand of differential duty (Rs. 7,19,538 minus Rs. 5,00,796/-) is contested on the ground of limitation. It was further submitted that on coming to know about the amendment through Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Act, the 1st respondent re-worked the duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the repacking goods viz., Servo Kool/Hydraulic Brake fluids in unit containers. Admitting the duty liability to the extent of Rs. 5,00,696/-, the 1st respondent/assessee paid the amount. The assessee only contested the demand of differential duty i.e., Rs. 7,19,538/- minus Rs. 5,00, 696/- on the ground of limitation. According to the 1st respondent, they had no liability to pay duty of excise on the repacked goods prior to 1-3-1997 and as SSI unit they were not required to register with the Department during such period. Further contention of 1st respondent is that only with introduction of Note 5 to Chapter 38 the activity of repacking of the subject goods came to be deemed to be manufactured and the change of law was not known to the 1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ex., Meerut [2009 (238) E.L.T. 21], the Supreme Court held as under : "19. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for penalty. It, therefore, requires strict consideration. Period of limitation provided for in the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to initiate a proceeding for imposition of penalty on the expiry thereof. The proviso appended to Section 11A(1) of the Act makes an exception to the said Rule, the ingredients whereof are thus required to be established for invoking the extended period of limitation. If on the materials produced by the parties, the Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact that there had been no suppression on the part of the appellant after 22nd January, 1991, the question of invo....