9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Adv - for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-Original No.38-2007(H-I)CE dated 30/11/2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that fails for consideration this case is regarding the demand of duty confirmed by the Revenue against the materials imported by respondent who is an EOU. It transpires that the respondent had imported r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods which is more than the duty which has been confirmed on the raw materials there is no need for any confirmation of the demand and he has set aside the interest and penalties imposed. 4. Revenue is aggrieved by such an order on the ground that the 1st Appellate Authority has wrongly set aside the order-in-original for the confirmation of the demand and also was wrong in setting aside interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue seems to be genuine as to the demand of interest being wrongly set aside by 1st Appellate Authority. To that extent, we hold that the appeal merits acceptance. However, on a specific query from the Bench, it was informed that the duty liability on the raw-materials imported works out approximately to Rs. 20,00,000/- while it is claim of the respondent and accepted by the lower authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the excisable goods referred to in [sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A)]" It can be noticed that any excess payment can be adjusted towards the duty of payable by a person is contemplated and it would mean including the interest also and in this case there cannot be any recovery of interest. 8. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the 1st Appellate Authority's order to the extent it sets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
