2013 (10) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acture of MS Ingots and bars and was required to discharge its duty liability in terms of the provision of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules. For the month of August 2008, the total duty liability of the appellant was Rs. 63,28,450/-, as per their ER-1 return. However, they short paid duty of Rs. 2,30,000/-, which was ultimately deposited by them on 13.09.2008 i.e. there was delay of amount six days .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h a default on the part of the assessee would only attract interest and penalty under Rule 27. As such by following the said decision, I set aside the impugned order in so far the same relates to confirmation of demand of duty. However, the appellant would be liable to pay the interest which the lower authorities would quantify. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- in terms of Rule 27 and by foll .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X