2016 (8) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oto taken by the appellant was knowingly allowed by the Commissioner. Therefore the suo moto abatement has been regularized by the Commissioner’s order. The abatement stand granted from the date of suo moto abatement taken by the appellant. I therefore do not see any reason why the interest is payable, consequently penalty is also not imposable. Therefore, the interest and penalty is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB(53)53/MV/2010 dt. 20.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-I. 2. The fact of the case is th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er passed the impugned order wherein he held that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the amount of ₹ 1,45,645/- for the period outstanding i.e. from date of payment due and actual date of abatement granted by the Commissioner. Penalty of ₹ 1,45,645/- imposed by the adjudicating authority was upheld, a demand of ₹ 4,355/- short paid by the appellant along with interest and penalty of ₹ 4,355/- was also imposed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before me. 3. Ms. Mansi Patil, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the suo moto abatement taken by the appellant has been admittedly regularized by the Commissioner though at later stage but the grant of abatement should be considered deeme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the Commissioner, by an order allowed the abatement therefore the interest and penalty is correctly imposable on the appellant. He placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) Krishna Processors Vs. Union of India 2012 (280) E.L.T. 186 (Guj.) (ii) Commissioner of Cus. & Central Excise Vs. Webbing & Belting Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (290) E.L.T. 508 (All.) (iii) Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs. Majestic Auto Ltd. 2013 (289) E.L.T.95 (All.) (iv) Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2014 (306) E.L.T. 617 (Mad.) (v) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commr. of Central Excise 2015 (326) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.). 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the overall facts it is not under dispute that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X