2016 (5) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is a manufacturer of paints, varnishes, thinners and paint removers falling under chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. That appellant cleared the manufactured products from April, 2009 to June, 2009 without payment of Central Excise Duty by claiming exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003. That on scrutiny of ER-I for the year 2008-09 Department observed that appellants turn out during the financial year 2008-09 was more than Rs. 4.00 crore therefore, appellant was not eligible for SSI exemption during the financial year 2009-2010. That as soon as the mistake was pointed out to the appellant, the entire amount of short le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and discharge correct duty liability. That if the departmental officers had not detected the evasion then the same would have escaped recovery.That the appellant deserves imposition of penalty under Rule 25 (1) (a) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether penalty can be imposed upon the appellant under Rule 25 (1) (a) (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appellant was availing value based SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 and the value of clearances exceeded Rs. 4.00 Crore during the financial year 2008-2009. As a result of the value of clearances exceeding Rs. 4.00 Crores, appellant was not eligible ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2009-2010. Only the appellant was aware that value of clearances during the financial year 2008 & 2009 have crossed Rs. 4.00 crores and that appellant is not eligible to SSI exemption during 2009-10. By not discharging the appropriate Central Excise duty, the Central Excise Rules have been violated as per the penal provisions contained in Rule 25 (1) (a) & (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The conduct of the appellant by not resorting to payment of Central Excise duty during the relevant period indicates intent to evade Central Excise duty which could have escaped had it not been detected by departmental officers. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, applicable at the relevant time ....