Decided on May 08,2015

Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Appellant


P.K. Das, J. - (1.)THE relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of P.P. medicines. During the audit by the Central Excise Officers, it was found that the appellant had cleared certain goods under PA series of invoices without payment of duty during the period 2006 -2007 and 2008 -2009. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2010 was issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and also imposed penalty equal amount of duty Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.
(2.)THE Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that they have submitted before the original authorities that they issued invoices in respect of returned goods. He fairly submits that the appellant could not produce the evidences before the lower authorities. It has submitted that they obtained Panchnama dated 24.04.2007, which would show that the said documents were seized by the Central Excise Authorities. He submits that the appellant may be given opportunity to place the documents before the lower authorities.
The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant had not contested the demand of duty alongwith interest before the lower authorities. It is submitted that they had contested only on the imposition of penalty. He further submits that the Panchnama is April 2007, which was available with them during adjudication proceeding.

(3.)AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find from the impugned order that the appellant had paid the Central Excise duty alongwith interest, which has been appropriated towards the confirm duty and interest. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of imposition penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On a query of the Bench, the Learned Advocate submits that the Adjudicating Authority had given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty under Section 11AC of the Act. It is noted that the demand relates to the period 2006 -07 to 2008 -09. The learned advocate placed the copy of Panchnama dated 24.04.2007 to substantiate that the documents were seized by the Department. I find that the evidence place by the Learned Advocate was available during the proceedings before the lower authorities and they have not placed this evidence before them. In any event, the Panchnama dated 24.04.2007 has no relation with the demand of duty for the period 2006 -07 to 2008 -09.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.