9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of material timely to the respondent - penalty u/s 11AC is not imposable. Interest - Held that: - interest is unavoidable as the same is in the nature of piggyback of the duty. It was admitted that duty was paid belatedly therefore for the delay the interest payment is inevitable - demand of interest upheld. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/3342/06 - A/85710/17/SMB - Dated:- 3-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) for the appellant Shri Virat Charda, Advocate for the respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the respondent is a job worker for Castrol India Ltd. for manufacture of grease. The valuation of the goods is done on the basis of cost constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice on 24.03.2005 invoking a larger period of limitation on the ground that the respondent suppressed the aforesaid fact from the department and the payment was made pursuant to audit observation. The show-cause notice was confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2005. Respondent preferred an appeal against this Order-in-Original which was set aside by the impugned order dated 11.09.2006. Being aggrieved by that impugned order revenue filed the present appeal only against the dropping of interest and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Shri V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. Therefore, no malafide can be attributed to the respondent. For this reason also penalty and interest cannot be charged to the respondent. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. I find that the issue in the present appeal is only whether the penalty under Section 11AC and interest under 11AB is chargeable in the fact that the differential duty was payable due to variation in the value arose because the correct cost of raw material was not available at the time of clearance of the goods to the respondent as the same was being provided by the principal of the respondent. In the fact of the case, I find that there is no malafide on the part of the respondent. They have admittedly paid the duty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
