2005 (7) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....On being questioned, Shri Suchit Singh, authorized signatory of the appellants admitted that the said short found goods totally valued at Rs. 16,70,405/- involving duty of Rs. 3,00,675/- were cleared by them without payment of duty. He did not disclose the name of the buyers on the ground that the goods were disposed off in the open market. He also agreed to pay duty and immediately debited the duty amount from their RG-23A Part-II register. His statement was also recorded subsequently, wherein he admitted the correctness of the first statement recorded on 3-7-97. Summons was also issued to the Director, Shri Vimal Jain, but he did not appear before the authorities. 2.  In view of the foregoing facts, show cause notice dated 18-1-20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submits that the entire duty having been deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice, no penalty can be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest demanded under Section 11AB as held by the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montel (I) Ltd., reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB) and Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Jkon Engineering (P) Ltd., reported in 2005 (67) RLT 157 (Mad). 4. Shri N.V.B. Nair, ld. DR appearing for the revenue submits that on the face of the admission by the authorized representative of the company, the authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of duty against the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded to the appellants. For this, limited purpose, I remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of duty amount. 6. As regards personal penalty, the appellants have contended that inasmuch as the duty was deposited by them before the issuance of the show cause notice, no penalty should be imposed upon them. However, I find that the penalty in the present case has been imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC. The said rule is invocable when the final product is removed without payment of duty. The tribunal in the case of CC & CE Indore v. S.P. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd., & Naveen Jhanjee, MD, reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 136 = 2005 (98) ECC 707 (Tri.) has observed that imposition of pe....