9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has been quashed and it has declared that the respondents are not liable to pay any interest. 2. The issue involved in the matter was whether the respondents who had opted for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 had paid/reversed the amount equivalent to the credit taken on inputs in stock or used in the finished excisable goods lying in stock as on 1-3-2000 that is the day on which option available under the said exemption notification was sought to be availed by the respondents. The show cause notice dated 27-3-2001 was issued to the respondents in relation to the alleged failure to reverse the credit taken on inputs in stock and those used in the finished excisable goods lying in stock as on 1-3-2000 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculations being not correct accepted the quantification of the liability as claimed by the respondents and reduced the demand from ₹ 3,56,082/- to ₹ 3,22,731/- while setting aside the order relating to the payment of interest and imposition of penalty. 3. The DR while challenging the impugned order submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in reducing the amount of liability which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority essentially on account of the party s failure to produce documentary evidence in support of their calculation claim. On the other hand, the Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents were not aware of the basis on which Superintendent had made the calculatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and the basis thereof adopted by the Superintendent was neither disclosed to the assessee nor analysed by the adjudicating authority. In such situation we do not find any illegality in reducing the amount of liability from ₹ 3,56,082/- to ₹ 3,22,731/-. 5. As far as interest amount is concerned, however, it could not have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), the same being statutory liability of the assessee. The order in relation to the setting aside the order of liability of interest, therefore, cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 6. As far as penalty aspect is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only observed that there is no question of mala fide on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
