2016 (6) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 to June, 11 along with interest. The matter was adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority and apart from confirming the reversal of credit and interest thereon, a penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 02 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The first appellate authority also upheld the demand of credits, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the show-cause notice itself is time barred as the period in dispute is May, 2005 to October, 2007, whereas the show-cause notice has been issued on 4.12.2009. He argued that since the situation was revenue neutra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... both the adjudication orders, viz., on the first occasion and, thereafter, on remand. There is a specific finding by the Commissioner that only due to ignorance of law, the assessee has not paid the duty. It is trite law that ignorance of law cannot be a ground to avoid tax liability and to allow the appeal. There is yet another factor involved in the present case, viz., IOC being a public sector undertaking, as has been admitted by the Tribunal, is under excise control for generations. IOC has supplied goods in bulk and, therefore, show cause notice has also been issued on them. Therefore, IOC should have been well aware of the change in circumstances. In such circumstances, it should be expected that the assessee was aware of the positio....