9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ld. Departmental representative. It is to be noted that the Karnataka High Court has referred to the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue [ 2003 (5) TMI 509 - SC ORDER] from the decision of this Tribunal in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam [ 2002 (11) TMI 234 - CEGAT, BANGALORE] where identical issue was considered. In these circumstances, we follow the ratio of the decision of the Karnataka High Court and hold that when the duty amount is paid by the assessee before issuance of show cause notice, no penalty can be imposed under Section 11A and interest demanded u/s 11AC. Since no other issue is raised in the appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, we dismiss the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . v. CCE, Kolkata-I [2002 (53) RLT 224 (CEGAT-Kol.) (3) Bharat Seats Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III [2003 (157) E.L.T. 464 (Tribunal-Del.)] 3. It was in view of the conflicting decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal, the learned Single Member referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench. 4. When the case was taken up for hearing, ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondent/assessee brought to our notice a decision of the Karnataka High Court in CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.) = 2004 (61) RLT 17 (Kar.)] rejecting a reference application made by the Revenue against an order passed by this Tribunal holding that interest and penalty are not leviable when duty has been paid before issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 and 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC without any justifiable or legal reason whereas the penalties were imposed in accordance with law; (II) Whether it was correct for the Tribunal to vacate the demand for interest made in terms of valid, mandatory and explicit legal provisions contained in Section 11AB; and (III) Whether Tribunal could pass an order without examining the issues involved, following the ratio of a case involving dissimilar facts, which has also been appealed against before Supreme Court. 3. We may first refer to the third question. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal could not have relied on its earlier decision in Rashtriya Ispat Nizam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2003 (54) RLT 317 as the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be there, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder. The fact that the assessee has paid the duty before issue of the show cause notice will not relieve him from such liability. 6. In the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court as referred above which considered the very same issue placed before us, it may not be possible for us to take a different view as contended by the ld. Departmental representative. It is to be noted that the Karnataka High Court has referred to the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue [2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.)] from the decision of this Tribunal in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
