2017 (9) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the appellant did not discharge the excise duty after crossing the exemption limit. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,50,962/- and also ordered for appropriation of the same amount which was already paid an amount of Rs. 6,792/- towards the Cenvat Credit. It was also confirmed the demand of interest and the amount already paid was appropriated. As against the demand of duty an equal penalty of Rs. 6,50,962/- was also imposed with option of reduced penalty to the extent of 25% in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC. In addition a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on Shri Vishal M. Lunkad, Power of Attorney holder of the appellant firm. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original the appellant filed appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) has already granted the liberty to the appellant to seek redressal at appropriate. Therefore no further order required to pass on this issue. As regard penalty under Section 11AC, he submits that the appellant, after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 Crores kept on removing the goods without payment of duty and the same was not disclosed to the department, accordingly the penalty under Section 11AC was rightly imposed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. AR and perused the record and also the submissions made by the appellant in their grounds of appeal. I find that as regard the confirmation demand there is no contest by the appellant therefore the demand stands upheld. As regard grievance that the amount o....