9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confirmation of interest and Revenue filed the appeal against dropping the penalty. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of PSC Sleepers. During the course of scrutiny of records by the Central Excise Officers, on 19/20-9-2005, it was noticed that the assessee had been charging an amount of Rs. 37.74 towards reimbursement of freight charges on the purchase of input/raw material from the Railway with reference to their contract dated 23-3-2004, that they have been charging this amount towards sale cost of PSC Sleepers from their godown, but did not include it in the assessable value of sleepers. On being pointed out the assessee deposited the Central Excise duty but did not pay the interest on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and Weaving Mills by the Hon'ble Apex Court [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the show-cause notice issued for payment of interest and proposal for penalty was time barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the same in detail. To support his contention he placed reliance on CCE, Jalandhar v. Krishna Engg. Works Ltd. reported in 2010 (97) RLT Online 296 (CESTAT-DEL.) wherein this Tribunal has considered the issue in detail and held that in the absence of allegation of misstatement or suppression of fact etc. in respect of differential duty paid on supplementary invoice during the period 16-9-2003 to 13-8-2004, show-cause notice issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that penalty is not imposable without element of law, there cannot be levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides. I find that issue in this case is whether the show-cause notice issued on 8-12-2006 for the period of April 2004 to September 2005 is time barred or not in the appeal of the assessee. I find that it is well settled law by the apex court in the case of SKF (India) Ltd. (supra) that interest is payable for the delayed payments but in the case of Krishna Engg. Works Ltd. After considering the case of SKF (India) Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal has held as under :- "I have carefully considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of misstatement or suppression of facts, etc. the show cause notice dated 31-3-2006 is time barred. In view of this, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed". In this case also I have find that the facts of this case are similar to the case of Krishna Engineering Works (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held since the interest demand pertains to period 16-9-2003 to 13-8-2004 and the show cause notice has been issued on 13-3-2006, there is not allegation of misstatement and suppression of facts, show cause notice is time barred. In this case also the period related is April 2005 to September 2005, the investigation took place on 19/20-9-2005 and the assessee paid the duty immediately on pointing out by the department but the department did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
