9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SSI exemption claimed by the appellant was denied by the department on the ground that the appellant had used the brand name of his brother's business, which is not permissible for claim of the SSI benefit. The appellant had accepted the duty liability and deposited the duty before issuance of the show cause notice. The amount deposited by the appellant was appropriated against the duty demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be paid by the assessee in terms of the un-amended Section 11AB of the Act. Thus, he submits that since the entire duty amount was deposited by the appellant before adjudication of the matter, there was no question of determination of duty by the proper officer regarding non-payment of further additional duty by the appellant and accordingly, interest liability cannot be fastened a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be determination of the duty liability and in case of non-payment of such duty within 90 days from the date of determination, the interest liability is required to be fastened against the assessee. The said provision in this case will not be applicable inasmuch as the entire disputed amount was deposited even much before the date of passing of the adjudication order. Therefore, in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period prior to the substitution of new Section 11AB of the Act, the provisions of such amended rule will not be applicable in the case of the appellant herein. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellant should get the benefit of payment of reduced amount of penalty of 25% in terms of Section 11AC ibid. 6. In view of above, the impugned order, denying the benefit of reduced amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
