2015 (12) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,72,714/- and appropriated Rs. 13,11,900/- towards the demand and imposed equivalent penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as under Rule 25 of CER 2002 on the appellant and also imposed equivalent penalty on the Managing Partner of the appellant-company. On appeal by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order and reduced the demand and proportionately reduced the penalty under Section 11AC and also interest and set aside the penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the investigation was commenced on 12.2.2007 andimmediately after detection of the case,they have already paid major part of the demandbetween 16.5.2003 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.)  (3) Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Vs CCE Vapi 2013 (294) ELT 222 (Tri.-LB) 5. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and examined the records. The short issue in the present appeal relates to waiver of penalty and interest asthe appellants already paid the revised/reduced duty amount as per Commissioner(Appeals) OIA. I find that the LAA dealt the issue in detail both on merits and invoking the extended period. This is the case where the appellants have cleared the cotton yarn dyed woven fabrics without payment of excise duty whereas they collected the Central Excise duty from the customers and the same was not remitted to government account. I find that the adjudicating authority confirm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d penalty under Section 11AC but also set aside the equal penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25. I find that the appellant produced copy of TR-6 challandt. 26.2.2015 as evidence of payment of balance amount of Rs. 3,84,251/-. The LAA rightly relied the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of UOI VsDharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC)] and upheld the reduced penalty under Section 11AC. As regards invoking extended period intention toevade payment of duty which was already collected butnot remitted to the government is suppression of facts has been clearly established and the same was admitted by the appellant and paid the duty amount. In this regard, the Honble High Court in the case of CCE VsNeminath Fabric....