2017 (6) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pakshirajan, AR, For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,75,535/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- only. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough syrup falling under subheading ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egistration and without following the Central Excise procedures. They also failed to inform the Department about the fact of manufacture of excisable goods and payment of duty and did not file any returns as required under the Central Excise Rules. On verification of the records maintained by the appellant, it was noticed that their entire products were sold through M/s. Leela Pharma which is owne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the normal transaction value allowed the service tax paid and eligible CENVAT credit to adjust towards the short-levy worked out on the basis of the documents/evidences produced by the appellant within one month's time by Order-in-Appeal. Further, the appellant was allowed to avail the benefit of 25% of the penalty as available in the first proviso to Section 11AC. Thereafter the lower authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and invocation of larger period under Section 11A proviso of the Act was not justified. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC by invoking the extended period alleging suppression is not justified as there was no mis-representation on the part of the appellant and the appellant had a bona fide belief that his product is not excisable. 5. On the other hand, the ....