2017 (1) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty liability of Rs. 3,06,281.00 was paid immediately by the appellant to put the issue at rest. However, show cause notice was issued and after due process of law vide Order-in-Original No. 11/DC/R-4/dgp-iii/2010-11 dated 28/02/2011 duty demand of Rs. 3,06,281.00 was confirmed and appropriated. Interest was demanded under Section 11AB and equal penalty has been imposed under Rule 25(1)(a), 25 1 (b) and 25(1) (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed upon the Managing Director Shri Tushar Rawat and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed upon the General Manager (Works) Shri Bijay Kr. Mohanty. On appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the Order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lities and without payment of Central Excise duty. The fact of such clearances of their finished goods was not intimated to the Department and Central Excise duty involved in those clearances was also not paid. He further submits that the statement of Shri Bijay Kr. Mohanty, General Manager (Works) of the appellant company was recorded wherein he has accepted the shortage of the finished goods. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. I find from the adjudication order that Shri Bijoy Kr. Mohanty, G.M. (Works), in his statement dated- 28/10/2009 in reply to question No.1, stated as under: "Answer No.1 I have seen the joint Stock Verification Report and I put my signature as a token of having seen the same. I fully agre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 11AC against the assessee by the adjudicating authority, which was however set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by assessee and the same was upheld by the Tribunal by dismissing the Revenue's appeal essentially on the ground that the entire amount of the duty had already been deposited by the assessee prior to issuance of impugned show cause notice demanding penalty amount from the assessee. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the two decisions of Madras and Karnataka High Courts reported in 2005 (67) RLT 157 (Mad.) CCE, Madras v. Jkon Engineering (P) Ltd., and 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.) Commissioner of C.Ex., Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, and then came to this conclusion holding that since the enti....