9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri D.N. Choudhary, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal, M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., are challenging the penalty imposed on them and interest demanded from them under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture iron and steel and ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, submitted that larger period of limitation is not invocable for imposing penalty and demanding interest as there was no mala fide intention on their part in not reversing the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs and capital goods issued to ineligible sectors; that the Department was aware of the fact that the appellants were reversing the Modvat credit on their own; that they were having, all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that they are admitting that there was suppression of facts and the larger period of limitation is invocable; that further under Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, it was required that, before the capital goods can be removed, an intimation to be given to the Department and acknowledgement had to be obtained; that in this matter, no such intimation has been given nor any acknowledgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provided under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. Once the extended period of limitation is invocable, provisions of Section 11AC for imposing penalty and provisions of Section 11AB for demanding interest on delayed payment of duty, are attracted. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are liable to pay penalty and interest. However, considering the fact that the appellants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
