TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the original authority vacated by the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent M/s. ACD Communications Pvt. Ltd., Yanam, (ACD for short) engaged in the manufacture of telecom equipment had cleared their finished goods during 1-10-2003 to 31-1-04 on sale to M/s. BSNL under a contract. As per the terms of the contract, the respondents were to charge 90% of the price offered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on ACD under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The amount of interest and penalty confirmed against the respondent was Rs. 83,000/- each. 2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had vacated the order of the original authority relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of H.V. Axler Ltd. v. CCE, Ranchi [2007 (215) E.L.T. 70 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made payment at the time of clearance of the goods on a provisional basis; interest was legally payable. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of H.V. Axler Ltd. v. CCE, Ranchi [2007 (215) E.L.T. 70 (Tri. - Kol.)] relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) was overruled by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. v. CC CE, Pune-I [2008 (232) E.L.T. 224 (Tri. - L.B.)]. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent is not justified. Assessee had paid duty on the differential amount as soon as the same was realized. It cannot be held that the respondent had committed any breach of provisions deliberately. Moreover the appeal has not raised any ground justifying the penalty. Penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of deliberate defiance of law even if the statute provides for penalty. As regards the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
