Case Law Details
C.C.E.-Ahmedabad Vs Quippo Energy Pvt Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT held that since there is no suppression of fact, demand of extended period is not sustainable. The penalty imposed in the impugned order was held to be not warranted accordingly, the same was set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
In this revenue’s appeal, revenue seeks to impose equal of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as against the penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed by the adjudicating authority.
2. Shri Tara Prakash, learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the adjudicating authority though imposed penalty under Section 11AC but against the total duty amount of 3,45,34,494/- only penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed whereas, there is no option for the adjudicating authority except to impose penalty of equal amount of duty in terms of Section 11AC.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
