2019 (2) TMI 204 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Levy of penalty – delay in payment of cess – Penalty u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 – suppression of facts or not? – Tea Cess for the period Jun.'13 to Dec.'13 – Held that:- No evidence is established that the appellants have suppressed facts in order to evade payment of Cess. On being pointed out, they had paid the Cess. It is argued by learned counsel, that the delay occurred due to financial hardships, the instalments due to the banks, payment of wages etc., There was no intention to evade payment of Cess.
–
The penalty imposed is harsh and unwarranted is set aside – appeal allowed in part. – E/41736/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42981/2018 –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
el Ms. P. Kanthi Visalakshi appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the appellants are confining the arguments to the imposition of penalties only. They have paid the Cess demand. She argued that though in the show-cause notice it is proposed to impose penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, there is no allegation raised that the appellants had suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Even in the order, the adjudicating authority has not stated any reasons for imposing penalty except for the fact it is stated that the appellants have violated the provisions of law and have filed returns belatedly. It is also argued by her that the appellants were fac
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
riod Jun.'13 to Dec.'13. On perusal of the show-cause notice, I do not find any ground alleged so as to impose the penalty under the said provisions. No evidence is established that the appellants have suppressed facts in order to evade payment of Cess. On being pointed out, they had paid the Cess. It is argued by learned counsel, that the delay occurred due to financial hardships, the instalments due to the banks, payment of wages etc., There was no intention to evade payment of Cess. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the penalty imposed is harsh and unwarranted. The penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are hereby set aside. The impugned order is modified to the limited extent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =