9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip but they have paid the entire amount of duty with interest on 18.10.2006. Further, they stated that there is no mens-rea on their part for not paying the duty on time but they have paid it along with interest subsequently. Certain other explanations were also given on facts. The assessee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter and took note of the fact that the duty has been paid by the assessee along with interest and, therefore, was of the view that further interest need not be levied. However, with regard to the clearances effected by the assessee during the relevant period, the Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice by demanding the duty amount. The relief granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fully convinced with the reasons given therein for the inordinate delay of 906 days. Therefore, we would have been well justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. However, since this appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and we have considered as to whether any question of law would arise in the appeal, we are inclined to hear the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the matter. On such suggestion the learned counsel rightly agreed. Therefore, for such reason alone, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2021 stands disposed of acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared without payment of central excise duty; why the said duty amount mentioned in the show cause notice be recovered from the assessee in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of the Act; why interest at the appropriate rate should not be charged in terms of Section 11AB of the Act; why penalty should not be imposed under rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules; and why penalty should not be imposed under rule 27 of the Rules for contravention of the provisions of the Rules. The assessee submitted their reply dated 26.10.2007 stating that they are a small scale unit engaged in the manufacture of engineering goods and those goods would fall under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act on tailor mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. It is pointed out by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue that as against the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014(310) Excise Law Time 833 (Gujarat), the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court and order of stay has also been granted. In the light of the said legal position, the finding rendered by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of rule 8(3A) of the Rules has to be left open. However, with regard to the relief which was granted by the Commissioner to the assessee for not levying interest and penalty is concerned, on facts, we find that no question of law arises for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
