2018 (8) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s MCC Panel, AMF Panel, Lighting Panels, D. G. Panel, Feeder Pillar, etc. 2. There was a search/inspection in the premises of the appellant's factory on 01/08/1999, wherein certain records were resumed which included two parallel Invoices Nos. 56 & 57 both dated 20/05/1999 along with Bilty No. 627 of even date of 'Ravi Chabra Road Carrier'. The invoices revealed that they had cleared excisable goods to 'FA & CAO (MM), Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula, Haryana, against the invoices and charged the Central Excise duty @16% amounting to Rs. 1,26,880/- & Rs. 1,15,776/- respectively but the said duty was not paid to the credit of the Central Government totalling to Rs. 2,42,656/-. The appellant was registered with the Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lready made Rs. 4,75,000/- deposited on 03-04/08/1999, before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 3. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest and vide Order-in-Original dated 17/12/2004 confirmed the proposed demand of duty under Section 11D and Section 11A of the Act and imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Act along with recovery of interest. However no personal penalty was imposed on Proprietor - Shri Yogesh Gupta. Being aggrieved appellant had preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30/06/2006 upheld the charge of clandestine removal as well as duty confirmed under Section 11A & Section 11D of the Act and also upheld the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion under Section 11A of the Act and directed the Adjudicating Authority to recalculate the duty liability in consultation with the appellant. The penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was also upheld. 5. Pursuant to directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) the Adjudicating Authority reworked the demand at Rs. 1,63,815/- under Section 11A towards clandestine removal and also allowing appropriation of both the amounts from the amount pre-deposited Rs. 4,75,000/-. Further direction was given to the Adjudicating Authority to adjust the amount of Section 11D of Rs. 2,42,656/-, from already paid Rs. 4,75,000/- balance. Penalty under Section 11AC 25% of Rs. 1,63,815/- = Rs. 40,953/- net excess. 6. The present Appeal E/3835/2010 is against ....