9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price arrived at finalization of the cost data and the price paid at the time of clearance of the goods to their sister concern. The respondent discharged duty liability on their own. However, they were directed to pay interest as per the provisions of Section 11A(2B). The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the differential duty and adjusted the amount already paid; demanded interest under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondent. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, upheld the confirmation of the demand of differential duty, but set aside the interest and penalty imposed by the Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002. The issue of collecting interest on the differential duty payable/paid gains more importance in the present case because the party clears goods to their unit at Etakota continuously and every year based on CAS-4 cost data prepared for the previous year. In this connection, the judgment given by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Machine Montell (I) Ltd. [2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P & H)] is squarely applicable in this case. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and submits that they have also filed cross-objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. We heard both si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case, as short levy has been discharged by the respondent on his own. Hence, the lower authorities need not have issued any Show Cause Notice for the purpose of confirmation of the demand under Section 11A(2). We find that the issue in this case is covered by the decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s. Ahmednagar Forging Ltd. - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 255 (Tri. - Mum.) = 2008-TIOL-81-CESTAT-Mum and The Best Undertaking v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 202 (Tri. - Mum.) = 2007-TIOL-1458-CESTAT-Mum. These two decisions directly settle the law that once the duty is deposited before the issuance of Show Cause Notice on his own by the assessee, the confirmation of interest and penalty is not warranted. In any case, we find that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
