9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e whether appellants are entitle for option of 25% penalty. As regard the demand of interest, we find that interest is chargeable under Section 28AB. However as submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the interest was chargeable at different rates in the different period in terms of notification issued from time to time - we find that adjudicating authority has arbitrarily applied @24% interest rates without any authority. Therefore the same is not sustainable. We hold that adjudicating authority should re-quantify the interest as per the rates prevailing from time to time. As regard the redemption fine, we find that since the goods were not available and same was neither seized nor released provisionally, the redemption fine was not warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty, dropping of interest and redemption fine. 2. Shri. Prashant Patankar, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that issue is only related to penalty, interest and redemption fine. He submits that demand is beyond the five years therefore the same is not in terms of Section 28 consequently penalty imposed under Section 114A is also not applicable as the same applies to determination of duty under Section 28. He alternatively submits that adjudicating authority has not given option to avail the benefit of 25% penalty as provided in the proviso to Section 28 AC. In this regard he relied upon following judgments: (a) Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Surat-I Vs. Santosh Textile Mills[20016(334) ELT 54(Guj)] upheld by the Hon'ble Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) Agro Tech Foods Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015(330) ELT 448(Tri. Mum)] (d) Commissioner of C. ex. JP Vs. Lucky Plast Ltd [2015( 323) ELT 40(Raj)] (e) Commissioner of Customs C. Ex. Coimbatore Vs. Premier Polytronics P Ltd [2015 (320) ELT 83(Mad)] (f) Commissioner of Customs(Export() Vs. Bansal Industries [2007(207) ELT 346(Mad)] (g) Gujarat Travancore Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[1989(42) ELT 350(SC)] (h) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mils Vs. Commr. CentralEx[2015(326) ELT 209(SC)] 4. We have carefully considered the submissions mace sides and perused the record. 5. We find that limited issue to be decided by us is penalty, interest and redemption fine. As regard the penalty the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002-cus NT(13/05/2002) 13/05/2002 11/09/2003 15% 5 76/2003-cus NT(12/9/2003 12/09/2003 31/03/2011 13% 6 18/2011-cus NT(01/03/2011) 01/04/2011 18% In view of the above statutory rates of interest, we find that adjudicating authority has arbitrarily applied @24% interest rates without any authority. Therefore the same is not sustainable. We hold that adjudicating authority should re-quantify the interest as per the rates prevailing from time to time as shown in the above table. As regard the redemption fine, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
