9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T is justified in the eye of law to re-calculate the demand of duty & Interest after applying of normal period of limitation, instead of confirmed demand under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 & chargeable Interest on the confirmed demand under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as leviable on the goods supplied by the respondent to MSEB & WBSEB during the period 2000-01/2001-02? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CESTAT is justified in the eye of law in set-a-side of the mandatory equal penalty which has been imposed on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 2. Heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Chief Engineer and empowered officer and countersigned by the Principal Secretary from the Department of Power, Government of West Bengal. Based on the said certificates, the respondent availed the benefit of the Notification, after duly filing classification list. RT-12 returns were also filed, which were assessed by the appropriate officers. 4. Despite these facts, proceedings were initiated against the respondent by way of issuance of show-cause notice dated 29th April, 2002 alleging that Japan Bank for International Co-operation is not an international organisation in terms of the explanation attached to Notification No. 108/95-C.E. and as such, projects financed by the said Bank are not entitled to duty-free goods and as such, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original. Considering all these facts, the third Member had come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Member (Judicial) in respect of issues forming difference of opinion is just and proper and accordingly the directions issued to the effect that the demand of Rs. 50,96,621/- plus interest is to be recalculated applying normal period of limitation and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC on the respondent assessee was liable to be set aside [2009 (239) E.L.T. 111 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. 6. We have considered the submissions made by Ms. Yajnik and also gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. The Tribunal as a matter of fact found that the there was no suppression of facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
