9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Emco Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], has held that period of limitation not only applies to the principle amount but also the same applies for recovery of interest - interest liability confirmed in the impugned order will not stand for judicial scrutiny. Imposition of penalty u/r 25 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - Held that: - the authorities below have not specifically brought on record any evidence regarding the malafides on the part of the appellant to defraud the Government Revenue. Since Rule 25 ibid is subject to the provisions of Section 11AC ibid, which clearly provides that in case of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, equal amount of penalty shall be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 5,57,885/- on 11.01.2005. Thereafter, the department issued the SCN on 15.04.2008, seeking appropriation of the said amount deposited by the appellant and also for confirmation of interest liability and for imposition of penalty. The said SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 31.03.2009 in confirming the proposals made therein. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Sh. Shaswat, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the differential duty of ₹ 5,57,885/- was deposited by the appellant on 11.01.2005 and thereafter the SCN was issued after one year, seeking recovery of the interest amount. He submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata vs Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 579 (SC), judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST LTU Bangalore vs Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 593 (Kar.) and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE & C. Aurangabad vs Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom.). 6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 7. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration is, as to whether, extended period of limitation in terms of the Proviso to Section 11A ibid can be invoked for recovery of interest on delayed payment of principle amount; and penalty can be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant case, there is no allegation that the assessee delayed payment of duty on account of any of these elements. On the other hand, it is very clear that the assessee had discharged the differential duty liability on their own. The differential duty payments were made during the period from May, 2004 to March, 2009 and were also reflected in the corresponding monthly returns filed by the assessee. Thus, the department was fully aware that the assessee was raising supplementary invoices for recovery of differential prices subsequent to the clearance of the goods and they were also discharging differential duty liability on issue of supplementary invoices. Therefore, it was incumbent on the department to recover interest which the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
