9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rastogi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue-against order in Appeal No. 646/Chd./2004 dated 16-9-2004 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh setting aside the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) and interest demand under Section 11AB, confirmed by the Jt. Commissioner vide order in Original No. 42/JC/CHD/04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not an essential ingredient on the issue of interest under Section 11AB, he pleaded that since the short payment of duty was due to wilful contravention of the provisions of rules, the interest under Section 11AB was chargeable. 2.2 Shri T.R. Rastogi, ld. DR represented for the responded pleaded that the period of dispute i.e. from December 2000 to March 2001, when as per the provisions of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akumar Textiles (supra) is with regard to Section 11AC, as in this case the Tribunal held that even if the short payment was due to clandestine removal and the duty was paid after issue of show-cause-notice, penalty is not imposable. In view of the above, he pleaded that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been taken by Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Modisons Ltd. (supra) which is based on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. UOI - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.). In view of this, we hold that penalty is imposable under Rule 173Q(1)(a) and the impugned order setting aside the penalty is not correct. 4. As regards the interest on sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
