9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises and after search seizure and investigation, booked a case against them. A show cause notice No. PRV/C/Stock/ EX/AE-6/384 dated 8-5-1998 was issued to the appellant for treating the activity of assembly of kitchen cabinet out of various components of kitchen furniture as manufacture, proposing classification of the products under Chapter heading no. 9403 of CETA, 1985, proposing recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 3,04,883/-, confiscation of the seized goods and for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and charging interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated, by Order No. 85/CEX/98 dated 14-9-98 was passed confirming the duty demand and also imposing redemption fine of Rs. 20,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount transferred the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. He submits that the appellant s factory has remain closed from the 1997 onwards and the question of recovery of the amount of duty from customers does not arise. He draws my attention to the averments made in the grounds of appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant has discontinued the business after the year 1997. He relies upon the judgment and order of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh-I v. Modi Oil General Mills as reported at 2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P H) and also in the case of Kalvert Food India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai as reported at 2007 (213) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.-Mum.). He also placed reliance on the CBEC Circular No. 275/37/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery the amounts deposited from their purchasers would not arise, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under : - The appellants contention that they had closed the business after the instant case was booked will not make any difference. I find that this point, which has been raised by the appellant, not being disputed, should have been considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in proper perspective. If it is a fact, either before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before me, then the question of recovery of any amount paid by them as per the adjudication order, would not arise. 7. I am fortified in my view by the order and judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same cannot be considered as pre-deposit. It is settled law that such pre-deposit earn interest within a period of three months from the date of passing of the Tribunal orders. Reference in this regard may be made to Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of ITC Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). 4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in respect of interest, the same shall be calculated by the authorities below at rates applicable and for the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal. It can be seen that the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble High Court and the Tribunal are squarely covering the issue in favour of the appellant. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
