COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ROLLATAINERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this Appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is imposable on, and interest under Section 11AB of the Act is to be demanded from the Respondents, M/s. Rollatainers Ltd.

(2.) WE heard Shri Atul Dixit, learned Sr. Departmental Representative for the Revenue and Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate for the Revenue. The Respondents availed benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E. dated 1.3.2000 separately in respect of Paper and Paper Board manufactured by them in their Paper Board Division and Speciality Paper Mills. The Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impug'ned Order, confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 50,25,117 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that Paper Board Division and Speciality Paper Mills are parts of a single premises belonging to the Appellants, The Tribunal has upheld the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on Appeal preferred by the Respondents vide Final Order Nos. 144 -145/2002 -D dated 7.6.2002. In this Appeal, the Revenue has mentioned that the Respondents deliberately obtained the registration for the second unit with intention to avail the double benefit of the Notification No. 6/2000 and accordingly penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and demand of interest under Section 11AB which were proposed in the show cause notice should have been ordered by the Commissioner. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative has submitted that the Tribunal has confirmed the demand of duty which shows that the Appellants had designed to avail of benefit of Notification wrongly; that the impugned Order clearly contains the findings to the effect that both the units were situated on common plot, had common power and water connection, common payment for these facilities and common payment to the worker; that they issued Debit notes to other just to show that the two units are independent. On the other hand, the learned Advocate has contended that there was no intention to evade the payment of duty as the registration under Rule 174 was obtained from the Department; that the Commissioner had not given any findings in the impugned Order to the effect that the Respondents had committed fraud or suppressed any fact or misdeclared any fact with an intent to evade payment of duty; that further, the notice was issued on 19.3.2001 for demanding duty during the months of March 2000 and for the Financial Year 2000 -01; that the show cause notice was issued within the specified period of one year.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of both the sides. The duty demand and penalty imposed have already been upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 144 -145/2002 -D dated 7.6.2002. The duty was demanded from the Appellants as they wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E. It has not been controverted by the Revenue that the Respondents had obtained a second Central Excise Registration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of Speciality Paper Mills. In view of these facts and circumstance, we are of the view that the amount of Penalty already imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned Order is sufficient and adequate.