9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department with an intention to evade duty, duty was paid but the interest was still not paid till the adjudication by the Commissioner (A) - Held that: - the appellant did not pay interest before the issue of SCN but paid the same much after the decision of the Commissioner (A) - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/214/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20428 / 2017 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lans during the period from August 2002 to November 2005 and on being pointed out they debited duty of ₹ 89,283/- and Education Cess of ₹ 494/- during April 2006. However, no interest was paid on the delayed payment of duty. Hence show-cause notice was issued demanding interest of ₹ 24,925/-, apart from appropriating the duty already paid by the appellants. Further proviso to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is settled, interest is not leviable where tax compliance is made on being pointed by the department. As such they requested dropping of the proceedings. However the original authority after following due process of law confirmed the entire demand with interest and penalty as proposed in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest amount of ₹ 24,925/- was paid on 3.1.2012. The representative prayed that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty and as soon as the mistake was pointed out, the appellant reversed the duty but paid the interest subsequently after the adjudication by the Commissioner (A). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (A) vide impugned order dated 8.12.2011. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and the fact that the appellant did not pay interest before the issue of show-cause notice but paid the same much after the decision of the Commissioner (A), I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) which calls for interference by this Tribunal. Therefore, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
