Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, considered the scope and extent of Section 11AC. In their land mark judgement in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors  2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), the Apex Court held that no discretion is available on quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Apex Court held that mens rea is immaterial for application of the Section 11AC of the Act. Authority imposing penalty has no discretion to reduce or waive penalty under any of the ingredients of section 11AC is present.

8.5 The ratio propounded in Dharmendra Textile and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills judgements (supra) was relied upon subsequently also by the Apex Court in their following judgements: 

	(1)    CCE Mumbai Vs Sunil Silk Mills
		2011 (267) ELT 438 (SC)
	(2)	CCE Kolkata Vs Praxair India Pvt. Ltd.
		2012 (278) ELT 579 (SC)

8.6 The ratio of Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) was also followed in a very recent judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Stesalit Ltd.  2017 (3470E TL 385 (SC). The Supreme Court once again reiterated that under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there was no discretion to reduce quantum of penalty. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows :-

13-02-2003. The allegations and modus herein are totally separate. Hence the case laws relied laying down that allegation of suppression for same issue cannot be raised for subsequent periods, will not help the appellant.
11. Conditionalities of Section 11AC being satisfied in the light of discussions herein above, and also drawing sustenance from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), we have no hesitation in concluding that penalty equal to the duty determined, namely Rs.60,18,344/- is imposable on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood during the relevant period. This being so, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for which appeal filed by appellant is dismissed.