Alloytech vs CCE
Whether penalty u/s 11AC of the
Central Excise Act imposed on the assessee is sustainable or not ?
Held, The assessee has tacitly
admitted their liability to have reversed the CENVAT credit at the time of
removal of the capital goods. They also voluntarily paid interest under section
11AB. These payments cannot be accepted as payments under sub-section 2B of
section 11A of the Act inasmuch as these were made under compulsion. Hence, the
question of invoking Explanation 3 ibid does not arise. It is not in dispute
that the show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation on the
ground of suppression of facts with intent to avail undue CENVAT credit. The
assessee did not choose to contest the demand on the ground of limitation,
thereby virtually accepting the allegation of suppression. Their only
grievance is against the penalty. The grounds for invoking the extended period
of limitation are Indisputably identical to the grounds for invoking the
section 11 AC. If that be so, where the
demand has not been contested on the ground of limitation, it is not open to
the assessee to oppose the section 11 AC penalty. In other words, where mens
rea stands accepted in relation to the demand of duty, it has to be accepted by
the assessee vis-a-vis the proposal for imposition of penalty under section
11AC. In the result, the penalty is unquestionable in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment