2008 (2) TMI 803 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated 14-3-2007.
2. Contention regarding the issuance of a show cause notice to the supplier for short payment of duty.
3. Appeal against the imposition of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Decision on the restoration of the appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an application for restoration of appeal against an order dated 14-3-2007. The main contention was that a show cause notice had been issued to the supplier for short payment of duty and penalty under Sections 11A(1) and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had earlier held that there was no record of such notice being issued. However, it was later confirmed that the notice had indeed been issued, and duty, penalty, and interest were imposed on the supplier. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and interest but set aside the penalty. The Tribunal found that the order dated 14-3-2007 did not require any recall as the supplier had paid duty voluntarily, and no charges of suppression were applicable.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the case where the supplier had paid duty voluntarily, and no charges of suppression were found to be applicable. The Division Bench concluded that interest under Section 11AB was not leviable in that case. The Tribunal upheld this decision and found that the order dated 14-3-2007 did not need to be recalled as it was correct on both counts. The application for restoration of appeal by the Revenue was deemed to be without merit and was dismissed accordingly.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the order dated 14-3-2007 did not require any recall as there was evidence of the show cause notice being issued to the supplier for short payment of duty. The Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the imposition of interest under Section 11AB and dismissed the application for restoration of appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised and concluded that the appeal did not need to be restored based on the facts presented during the proceedings.