TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....munication of the Order-in-Original- (i) whether the show cause notice issued subsequent to payment of differential duty is valid and (ii) whether the appellant is entitled to 25% benefit of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutkha, by using Pouch Packaging Machines. As per declaration filed for the month of November, 2008, they have total 30 machines installed and operating in their factory, out of which 24 machines were used for packing Gutkha of MRP Rs. 1/- and 06 machines were used to packing pan masala of MRP Rs. 1/-. The Preventive Team inspected their factory on 29/11/2008 and as per the panchnama they found irregularity being th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the amount already deposited. Further, there was proposal to impose penalty under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 on Shri Alim Ali, Authorized Signatory. 3. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the plea of unintentional error by the labourers were rejected and accordingly, the proposed demands were confirmed along with appropriation, further 45 bags of Pukar Brand Gutkha was ordered to be confiscated with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine Rs. 70,000/- and further the 5 Pouch Packing Machines were also ordered to be confiscated with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/- and further equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant/manufacturer under Rule 17 of PMPM Rules read with Rule 25 of CER, 2002. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I find that the provisions of PMPM Rules provide for levy of differential duty as well as penalty where any manufacture is found to be manufacturing in violation of his declaration. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, there was difference and violation found by the visiting officers, as noticed herein above. In this view of the matter, I hold that the levy of duty and penalty to be proper. However, under the facts and circumstances the appellant have deposited 25% penalty within 30 days of communication of the Order-in-Original and/or the date of recording of the Order-in-Original. Further, I hold that they are entitled to the benefit under Section 11 AC proviso (ii) which provides that the benefit of reduced penalty under the 1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46,25,000/- can be demanded from the respondents under the provisions of Section 11 A (1) of the Act read with 11 AB of the Act. 9. The brief facts of the case are already noticed, as above. The first show cause notice was issued on 27th May, 2009. Subsequently, revenue issued the 2nd show cause notice on 07/12/2009 on the same facts and circumstances, demanding the differential duty of Rs. 46,25,000/- of Central Excise duty. This SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 16th August, 2010 by the Additional Commissioner along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 17 (1) of PMPM Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impug....