9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : - In the absence of such determination of duty liability there was no occasion for the Department to demand any interest or penalty from the respondents – Appeal is dismissed - E/1276/2005 - 449/2010-EX(PB) - Dated:- 6-7-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. [Order per : Justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no justification for the demand of interest or imposition of penalty. 3. The facts relevant for the decision are that the respondents were engaged in manufacture of hot rolled products of non alloy steel classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period the respondents were working under the compounded levy scheme as described under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty which was required to be paid in terms of the difference between the duty amount fixed under final assessment and that under the provisional order was already deposited by the respondent in March 1999. 6. Referring to the orders dated 27-2-98 and 27-4-98, the proceedings were initiated against the respondents for recovery of interest and imposition of penalty on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12-1998 and matter was remanded for re-determination of the duty liability. Obviously, consequent to the order dated 24-12-1998 of the Tribunal, there was no subsisting order against the respondents fixing his duty liability. It was only on 5-5-1999 that the competent authority provisionally decided the duty liability of the respondents. However, the required differential duty in terms of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
