9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. E/454/2005 31/2005-C.E., dated 7-2-2005 -Nil- 10,000/- 3. E/891/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 14,34,437/-11,74,686/- 14,34,437/-11,74,686/- 4. E/892/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 -Nil- 2,00,000/- 5. E/896/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 -Nil- 50,000/- 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration in all these appeals, are that the appellants are the manufacturers of railway sleepers, basically used by the Indian Railways. Whereas, the assessee had filed price list No. 1/93-94 dated 11-12-1993 for the MC inserts. This was pending approval with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with appropriation order and requested to withdraw the said order. The Division office vide its letter C.No.IV/16/61/98 B1 dated 7-9-98, refused their request. The party vide its letter dated 24-11-98 contended that there was no demand made in the RT 12 and only after the finalization of price list the endorsement were made in the RT 12. Also, they contended that no show cause notice was issued and therefore the differential duty not payable by them. Meanwhile, the assessee had availed suo motu credit of 11,47,686/- in PLA vide entry Sl. No. 1393 dated 6-3-96 by intimating the Division and Range Office. In reply, Division office, informed the assessee that the credit in PLA cannot be availed without the permission of the jurisdictional Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty demand, however recommended the payment of interest from 28-3-1996 to 25-6-1998 and accordingly disposed off the case. In obedience to the CESTAT order, an amount of Rs. 3,94,405/- was paid towards interest for the delayed period from 28-3-1996 to the assessee on 22-6-2006 vide Order-in-Original No. 11/2006 dated 22-6-2006. 2.5 Aggrieved by the CESTAT order stated above in respect of the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 14,34,437/- and appropriation of refund amount of Rs. 11,74,686/- towards the Central Excise duty, the assessee filed an appeal No. 70/2006 before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka. 2.6 The Hon ble High Court, vide order dated 2-3-2007 set aside all the orders passed by the assessing authority, by the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by such an Order-in-Original, appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the submissions made before him, upheld the Orders-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant in Appeals Nos. 891/2008, 892 and 896/2008. In Appeal Nos. E/453 454/2005, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant-company, but reduced the penalty imposed on one of the officers of the company and set aside the penalty on them. 2.9 The appellant-company as well as the individuals aggrieved by this order are in appeal before us. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the appellants takes us through the entire record. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is two fold. The first issue to be considered is whether the appellant is liable for payment of Rs. 14,34,437/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs thirty-four thousand four hundred and thirty-seven only) which was raised on the assessment of RT 12 Returns. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that the Order-in-Original No. 2/95 dated 6-2-1995, which may find mentioned in the impugned orders is nothing but a finalization of a deductions claimed by the appellant in the price list. Consequent to such deductions, the RT 12 Returns were finalized. We find that this submission needs consideration by the lower authority. We also find fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. 7. As regards the Appeal Nos. 892 and 896/2008, we find that these two appeals are filed by the officers of the company against the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the confirmation of the demand of duty on the finalization of the provisional assessment. By any stretch of imagination, this activity cannot be considered as liable for penalty under provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the penalties imposed on the officers of the company are unwarranted and the appeals filed by them in Appeal Nos. 892 896/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
