Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai Versus Viraj Profiles Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 115 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 13-3-2018
E/87640, 87642, 87644, 87645/17 – A/86214-86217/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for appellant
None for respondent
ORDER
Per: M.V. Ravindran
These appeals are directed against orders-in-appeal No. SK/159-162/Th-II/2017 dated 25.05.2017.
2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the appeals are taken up for disposal even in the absence of any representative from the respondent.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals of Revenue, is wheth
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e respondent, the first appellate authority upheld the confirmation of demand along with interest and set aside the penalties imposed. For setting aside the penalties, the first appellate authority has recorded that there is intention to evade duty, as the records of the respondent were audited by the audit party during the relevant period in question i.e. March, 2012 to December, 2012.
5. Learned D.R. would draw my attention to the facts of the case. He would submit that the demands have been raised on the assessee-respondent by invoking extended period which would mean that there was suppression/mis-statement of facts with intention to evade duty. He would submit that the respondent-assessee having discharged the demand raised with inter
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
thorities. It is also undisputed that the records of the respondent-assessee's were audited by the audit party regularly during the period in question.
6.1 In my considered view, if the respondent-assessee discharged the demands as pointed out by the authorities during verification of the records with interest, provisions of section 11A(2B) would get attracted and show-cause notice should not have been issued to respondent-assessee. This provision of law was not considered by the adjudicating authority while imposing equal amount of penalty but first appellate authority correctly appreciated the law and set aside the penalty.
6.2 As regards the point raised by learned D.R., I find that the first appellate authority was correct in coming t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =