9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant partly and reduced the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturer of inserts and steel castings and were supplying the same to their customers based on contracts. In the purchase contract there was a clause for escalation of price of goods. Hence, the appellant raised supplementary in voices during the period 2000-01 for the escalation of prices. The appellant raise supplementary invoices for the clearances made during the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000. During the period May, 2000 to September, 2001 the appellant deposited the amount partly from PLA and partly from RG-23A, Part-II. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember, 2001 and that that credit balance was available with them in RG 23. Part II. As regards penalty imposed on the duty paid before the issuance of show cause notice it is his submission that the amount of duty has been paid before the issuance of show cause notice, and hence no penalty is imposable as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CEE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. as reported at 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB). 4. Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the question of discharging the duty liability through RG23A, Part II does not arise as the appellant is required to pay the duty at the time of raising the supplementary invoices Since they have not paid the duty for the period 16-7-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid debits, cannot be faulted and is a correct legal position. As regards payment of duty for the period 16-7-2000 to 31-8-2000 for the supplementary invoices raised by the appellant, I find that the appellant has discharged the duty liability through debits in RG 23A, Part II in the month of March, 2001 and September, 2001. It is not alleged nor also is the contention of the Revenue that when the duty was paid in March, 2001 and September, 2001 there was no balance in RG23A, Part II account. Since this allegation or contention is not raised in the show cause notice as well in the Order-in-Original, it has to be presumed that the appellant had balance in their RG23A, Part II when they debited the amount. Though it may be a fact that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed the demand vide his Order-in-Original dated 31-10-2001. Hence, penalty imposed on the appellant for the discharge of duty liability subsequently has to be considered from the angle that they had every intention to pay the amount, which is very evident, as they have issued supplementary invoices, may be due to mis-understanding of the law they did not debit the amount. Hence this itself cannot indicate any intention to evade payment of duty and visit them with that equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC In view of the facts and circumstances, as indicated I reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs.20,000/-. 7. As regards interest charged from the appellant, I find that provisions of Section 11AB are applicable and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
