9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest under Section 11AB is correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority as interest liability arises on the differential Central Excise duty paid due to revision of the cost of the goods. This law is settled and does not require any revisit. Penalty is imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In our considered view this provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their sister concern, the recipient unit would take the CENVAT credit of the Central Excise duty paid as final products manufactured are dutiable. The provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules does not get attracted as the said Rule provide for imposition of penalty only if there is a violation of the provisions of Rules. In the case in hand, we have already recorded that as the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l duty paid by appellant subsequently on account of revision of cost in respect of captively consumed goods and transferred to their sister unit during the period 01.04.02 to 20.11.2002 should be subjected to interest or not and penalty should be imposed or not. 4. We find that the appellant is not disputing the fact that they are liable to pay differential duty which they paid so. They are onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions during the material period. The differential duty has arisen due to revision in the cost not done at the time of clearance of the goods to their sister concern. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the issue is of revenue neutrality as duty paid on clearance of the goods to their sister concern is cenvatable. We find strong force in the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
