9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 367/2006 (V-I) C.E., dated 11-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. 2. Mr. S. Vittal Shetty, learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Ms. Sudha Koka, Seamed SDR, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 to May 2002 under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A. Interest under Section 11AB read with Rule 8(3) was demanded a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed under Rule 25. However, the Joint Commissioner issued a corrigendum dated 7-4-2003 to his Order-in-Original dated 10-4-2003, in terms of the corrigendum a penalty was enhanced to Rs. 8,62,120/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blished that the entire penalty is arbitrarily decided without any basis. In CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction 2005 in chapter 13 Para 4.2 it has been laid down that the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to issue any subsequent corrigendum making material changes in the order already passed. There cannot be any restriction for utilization of Cenvat credit under Rule as any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the issue, we find that the facility of deferred payment has been withdrawn without issuing show cause notice. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Punjab & Haryana (cited supra) in the case of Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. has held that the facility and payment of duty on fortnightly basis should be forfeited only after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
