2008 (7) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 59/2007 (H-IV) CE dated 31-10-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) II Hyderabad. 2. Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, the Consultant, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ms Joy Kumari Chander, the learned JCDR, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pheld the imposition of penalty under 11AC, he set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25. Further, he also upheld the demand of interest. 5. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner. They have said that there is absolutely no malafide on their part. The lower authority has wrongly stated that only on account of the audit objection, the lapse was found out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e bona fide doubt with regard to the payment of duty on the goods cleared from the Depot and the Consignment Agent premises. Therefore, in our view penalty is not called for. But as far as interest in concerned, it is a statutory liability. When the appellant is supposed to pay the duty on the date of clearance and if on the date of clearance the duty paid is less, then definitely when the differe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X