9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued by Ld. A.R in the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay relied by Ld. Counsel for appellant in WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT FORMERLY KNOWN AS IRRIGATION, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [ 2021 (12) TMI 427 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] the question is whether the demand under the SCN is barred by limitation or not - In the case on hand, the demand raised is within the normal period. Further, there is no penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner has considered all the facts and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- only. There are no grounds to interfere with the demand of interest and imposition of penalty - appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No.518 of 2012 - Final Order No. 401 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined to the demand of interest and the penalty imposed. Ld. Counsel explained that the appellant comes under the Ministry of Railways belonging to the Central Government. The goods cleared by the appellant was exempt from the levy of Excise Duty as per Notification No.62/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995. The appellant was under the bonafide belief that even subsequent to the Budget 2010-2011, they were exempt from the levy of Excise Duty. When the Department had enquired with regard to the non-payment of Excise Duty, the appellant vide letter dated 09.03.2011 had informed the Range Officer that Notification No.62/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 is still in application and therefore they are not required to pay the excise duty. This would establish that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Komathi supported the findings in the impugned order. It is pointed out by Ld. A.R that appellant is liable to pay the duty when the notification exempting the goods has been rescinded. The demand of interest automatically follows the duty liability and therefore the appellant cannot claim any relief from the payment of interest on the duty paid by them. Further, taking note of the fact that appellant is a Central Government undertaking, the adjudicating authority has imposed a meagre penalty of Rs.10,000/- only. Show cause notice is issued for the normal period and therefore the decision relied by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is distinguishable on facts. She prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
