2019 (3) TMI 785

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 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e., tippers classifiable under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the duty paid chassis received from the chassis manufacturer M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai. The fully built motor vehicles are cleared to Regional Sales Office i.e., M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. The assessee is availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Investigations revealed that the assessee is evading payment of excise duty by resorting to short-payment of central excise duty on Fully Built Vehicles (FBV) cleared to principle manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the imposition of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who vide the impugned order observed that when the assessee has paid the duty demanded along with interest before the issue of demand notice, in such situation imposition of penalty is not warranted and set aside the imposition of penalty. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of law. She further submitted that the assessee was aware of the correct position of law but in spite of that he did not pay the duty as per the provisions of law. She further submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2016 (339) ELT 152 (Tri.-Del.) • Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI: 2015 (327) ELT 41 (Bom.) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that admittedly the respondent has paid the entire duty along with interest prior to the issue of show-cause notice and therefore, in view of the Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 department should not have issued the show-cause notice as the proceedings are deemed to be concluded unless the Department can establish suppression of material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, the department has not been able to bring any material on record to show that the appellant has suppressed the facts with ....