2014 (4) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2007 (7) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - The Supreme Court has taken a view that the payment of duty/differential duty, whether before or after the show cause notice is issued cannot alter the liability for payment - The law laid down in the judgments relied upon b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... set aside the order confirming the penalty and interest passed by the Adjudicating authority and the Appellate Authority dated 3-7-2003 and 19-02-2004, respectively. 2. The only question that fell for consideration of the CESTAT was whether penalty and interest could be imposed when the duty had been deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice? It appears from the order of the CESTA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SORS ). The Supreme Court has taken a view that the payment of duty/differential duty, whether before or after the show cause notice is issued cannot alter the liability for payment. In view of these judgments, learned counsel for the parties fairly state that the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned order is no more a good law and that it stands set aside. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X