9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a case was booked against the appellant and central excise duty of Rs. 11,42,678/- along with interest of Rs. 12,49,677/- was demanded and it was paid by the appellant along with the penalty of Rs. 2,85,670/- (being 25% mandatory penalty under section 11AC). Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before this tribunal in which it had not contested the liability of excise duty but only prayed that it may be allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit on the inputs and input services which were used in the manufacture of the final product. Noting that this aspect was not examined by the lower authorities, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for the limited purpose of ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Commissioner's order is reproduced below :- "38. Thus, in view of the facts as stated hereinabove, I find that there has been excess payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 9,58,508/-, I thus, find that the assessee is entitled to the refund of Rs. 9,58,508/- under Sectoin 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. 39. Now coming to the refund of Rs. 10,86,097/- paid as interest vide Challan No. 00062 dated 31.08.2016 and refund of Rs. 2,85,670/- paid as penalty vide Challan No. 00063 dated 31.08.2016 out of total refund claim for Rs. 23,30,275/- dated 18.12.2019 filed by the assessee. 40. I do not agree with the contention of the assessee that they are entitled for refund of aforesaid amounts. The assessee has accepted the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11AC has also not been refunded to the appellant. He submits that the Joint Commissioner has, in his order not indicated any amount of penalty. However, he fairly submits that the penalty under section 11AC is mandatory penalty but asserts that when the duty has been re-determined so should be the penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order upholding the order of the Joint Commissioner. 5. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue supports the impugned order and asserts that it calls for no interference. 6. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was liable to pay excise duty and had not done so and durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
