9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey were discharging the duty liability only at the lower rate applicable to Tariff Item 68 – the appellant wants to enjoy the benefit of duty collection at the higher rate from the customers without remitting the same to the exchequer - the appellant is liable to discharge interest liability on the duty amount as they have collected the same from the customers without remitting to the exchequer - Prima facie the appellant had not made out a case for complete waiver of amount till the disposal - the appellant is directed to remit the interest liability calculated at the applicable rate for the period 14/05/2003 the date on which the provisions of Section 11DD came into force till the date on which the duty liability was discharged –upon such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the goods. Accordingly he re-determined the assessable value after fixing an abatement of 8% towards excise duty and confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 20,84,956/-. He also confirmed interest liability under Section 11AB and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has paid duty demand confirmed under protest. He is seeking only stay of the interest amount and the penalty imposed on the appellant. He submits that during the impugned period there was no pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is liable to pay interest liability. He also contends that imposition of penalty the appellant is also justified. Inasmuch as the appellant adopted two rates of duty one for collection as part of the price form the customers and the other, a lower rate for payment of duty to the exchequer, imposition of penalty under 11AC is warranted. Accordingly he pleads for putting the appellant to terms. 5. We have already carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 This case had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17/09/2002 reported at 2003 (161) ELT 68 (Bom) held inter alia as follows: It is needless to mention that no one can be allowed to retain the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh they were discharging the duty liability only at the lower rate applicable to Tariff Item 68. In other words, the appellant wants to enjoy the benefit of duty collection at the higher rate from the customers without remitting the same to the exchequer. Therefore, the appellant is liable to discharge interest liability on the duty amount inasmuch as they have collected the same from the customers without remitting to the exchequer. Therefore, prima facie we are of the considered view that the appellant had not made out a case for complete waiver of dues adjudged against them. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to remit the interest liability calculated at the applicable rate for the period 14/05/2003 the date on which the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
