TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he most of delay of payment of duty, accordingly only interest is chargeable therefore the demand of interest is upheld - penalty not warranted - appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL NO. E/89846 & 89679/13 - A/85395-85396/2018 - Dated:- 24-1-2018 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R. Nataraj, Vice President (Comml.), for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority confirmed the demand of interest amounting to ₹ 7028/- ₹ 4,191/- under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed the penalty of ₹ 4,000/- each under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals therefore the appellant are before me. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suo motu paid. This is a case of at the most of delay of payment of duty, accordingly only interest is chargeable therefore the demand of interest is upheld. In absence of any malafide intention penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|