9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her any duty had been paid on those debit notes nor debit notes had been reflected in the ER-I returns. The total duty chargeable on the debit notes was quantified as Rs. 57,233/- (Cenvat Rs. 45,786/- + AED(ST) Rs. 11,447/-). The Appellant paid the entire duty on 9-1-04 under two challans - amount of Rs. 45,678/- tones BED and Rs. 11,555/- towards AED(ST) the total duty paid was Rs. 57,233/-. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice for confirming the demand differential duty as Rs. 57,233/- and also differential duty of Rs. 108/- (difference between Rs. 45,786/- and Rs. 45,678/-). The SCN also sought imposition of penalty on the Appellant s company under Section 11AC and imposition of penalty on the Director of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reflected in the accounts maintained by them, which were presented to the Central Excise Officers, at the time of their visit, that they cannot be accused of suppression of relevant facts, that in this regard, reliance is placed on the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Narbada Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Jammu reported in 2007 (217) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal) = 2007 (82) RLT 825, K.G. Denim Ltd. v. CCE, Salem reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 464 (Tribunal) = 2008 (85) RLT 513 and Cepham Laboratories Ltd. Ors. v. CCE, Rohtak reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 286 (Tribunal) = 2007 (81) RLT 38; that in view of this, the duty demand made by the Appellant may be treated as payment made under Section 11A(2B) and that in view of this, there is no question of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. Kanhai Ram Thekedar reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was held that interest liability accrues automatically and separate written notice is not required for its recovery if it is not included in the order and also judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ajanta Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 97 wherein it was held that statutory interest will be attracted irrespective of whether the claim has been specifically made in the orders or not. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no dispute about the fact that during the period of dispute, the Appellant had issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of suppression of facts and therefore, Section 11A(2B) is not applicable and the Appellant would be liable for penalty under Section 11AC. The Appellant however claim that they are eligible for the benefit of 1st proviso to Section 11AC. 5. First proviso to Section 11AC states that where the duty demanded under Section 11A(2) and interest under Section 11AB is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the order of Central Excise determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the duty so determined. In this case, the duty demand which has been upheld is the demand of Rs. 57,233/- and the Dy. Commissioner s order does not demand any interest on it. Even the SCN doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
