9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by the authorities below, is in conformity with the statutory provisions. It is found that the amount deposited by the appellant before adjudication of the matter, was appropriated in the adjudication order towards duty liability. Since interest in the present case has not been deposited by the appellant, we are of the view that the interest for delayed payment of Central Excise duty has to be paid by the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, it is found that the issue involved in the case relates to interpretation of the Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31st March, 2003 and in an identical case, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself reported in [2010 (4) TMI 954 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has set aside the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nated in the adjudication order, wherein demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 19,18,731/- was confirmed alongwith equal amount of penalty. The amount already deposited by the appellant was appropriated in the said adjudication order. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the duty demand confirmed in the Adjudication Order. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since the raw-material/input supplier is the manufacturer of paper, the duty liability, if any, can be recovered from the supplier of the goods and the same cannot be confirmed on the appellant. He further, submits that even if the duty liability can be fastened on the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory provisions. We find that the amount deposited by the appellant before adjudication of the matter, was appropriated in the adjudication order towards duty liability. Since interest in the present case has not been deposited by the appellant, we are of the view that the interest for delayed payment of Central Excise duty has to be paid by the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, we find that the issue involved in the case relates to interpretation of the Notification No.22/2003 dated 31st March, 2003 and in an identical case, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself, vide order dated 28.04.2010 has set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that penalty cannot be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
