9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covery of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, in the present case also the interest on the outstanding amount is recoverable within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-computation of the interest taking into consideration of the normal period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Imposition of penalty - Rue 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Held that:- it is found that the appellant was registered with the Central Excise Dept., and they had cleared the manufactured goods on payment of substantial amount of duty while executing first stage of the contract, but failed to discharge duty in executing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndly, for assembly/manufacture of Heat Exchangers on job work basis. It was noticed that even though the appellant had manufactured and cleared excisable goods on payment of duty of ₹ 1,21,06,867/- in execution of the first contract but failed to discharge duty of ₹ 1,80,33,487/- on the second part of the part. Consequently, they paid the said duty between 9th July, 2008 and 31st Feb. 2009. A notice was issued to them on 25.11.2009 for recovery of interest amounting to ₹ 17,56,742 under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also proposal for penalty under Rue 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. On Adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of ₹ 45,08,372/- was imposed under Rule 25(1) of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued after one year from the payment of payment of duty therefore cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, the Ld Advocate referred to the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan insecticides Ltd Vs CC - 2013(299)ELT.332 (Tri Del.) Further, he has submitted that no penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules imposable as any of the ingredients of the said provision is not attracted in the present case. 5.The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner. Further, he has submitted that since the appellant had cleared the goods without payment of duty in contravention of the various provisions of the Central Excise Act,1944, therefore, penalty is definitely attracted under Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
