M/s Chanderpal Singh, M/s Chandra Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & GST, Delhi
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 255 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 851 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 23-2-2018
Appeal No. E/51932/2017-SM & E/50211/2018-SM – Final Order No. 50740-50741/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial )
Shri B. Bhushan, Advocate – for the appellant
Shri K. Poddar, D.R. – for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of lower authorities.
2. As per the facts on record, the officers intercepted one truck loaded with copper wire rods on 6.3.2011 which were cleared from the appellant's factory, without payment of duty. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of demand, interest and penalty as also for confiscation of the seized goods and the vehicle. Within a period of 30 days from
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
atable to confiscations etc.
4. After hearing the ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, I reproduce the relevant Section 11AC(1) (c) & (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
“The amount of penalty for non-levy or short-levy or non-payment or short-payment or erroneous refund shall be as follows:
(c) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (10) of section 11A, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined: Provided that in respect of the cases where the details relating to such transactions are recorded in the specified record for the period beginning with 8th April 2011 up to the date of which the Finance Bill, 2015
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
provision is with a purpose to reduce the litigation.
However, the lower authorities have observed that as much as in the present case there was suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty, the confiscation of the goods as also the vehicle can be adjudicated upon. I find no merit in the above stand of the Revenue. On a careful reading of both the sub sections, an inevitable conclusion is drawn that the conclusion of proceedings in terms of sub section (d) is provided in respect of cases mentioned in sub-section (c). Sub-section (c) relates to the evasion of duty by reason of fraud or collusion. As such it has to be held that in cases of fraud conclusion etc., the entire proceedings would get finally concluded on an assessee depositing the dues as mentioned in sub-section (d), thus not permitted further adjudication relatable to the confiscation of the goods on the vehicle etc.
6. As such, I find no justifiable reason to uphold the impugned order. Accordingly, the same are set
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =