9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is squarely covered by the explanation to Section 11AC. The duty determined under Section 11AC (2) was subsequent to the year 2000 - the case would be covered by the explanation to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - When no option was given by any of the adjudicating authorities after determination for payment of duty, interest and penalty of 25% of the duty – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 953 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2013 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. ORDER Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st May 2012 [2012 (285) E.L.T. 274 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [ CESTAT for shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944. 3. Order-in-Original confirmed the amount of demand and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by such Order-in-Original dated 23rd March 2006, the assessee approached the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) which also rejected the appeal on 19th September 2006. 4. When CESTAT was approached, it decided the appeal on 31st May 2012. It held against the assessee-respondent on merit by holding that it cannot claim the benefit of Rule 6 by debiting the amount equal to 8% of the value of the exempted goods as also cannot avail the CENVAT credit on the HR coils received by them which were to be exclusively used for manufacturing pipes by claiming exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. 5. The Tribunal, however, while concurri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , after discussing various case laws, concluded thus - 14. As can be noted from the decisions mentioned hereinabove, this Court has followed a consistent view that the assessee is required to be given the option by the adjudicating authority where he is asked to pay a duty demand with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication of the order and in such case, he would be liable to pay only 25% of the penalty. Whenever such option had not been given, the remand had been made to the concerned authorities. And period of 30 days is being considered, if in case option is not given earlier, from the date of availing such option. In the present case also, the remand had been made to the Tribunal and in the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
