TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent's unit had cleared goods of the value of Rs. 65,09,461/-. Hence, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause why (1) duty of Rs. 75,474/- on the value of clearances made in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 50 lakhs should not be demanded; (2) why interest at 20% should not be demanded on the duty due up to the date of payment of duty; (3) why penalty under Section 11AC of the Act equal to the duty amount proposed to be demanded and recovered should not be imposed; (4) why penalty under Rule 9(2), 52(A), 173(Q) and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed; and (5) why a personal penalty should not be imposed on the Managing Partner under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Even be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944. She submitted that since the disputed duty amount has already been deposited by the party even before the issue of show cause notice, imposition of penalty is not justified. In support of her contention, she referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam, reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 317 (CEGAT - Ban.). Taking into consideration of the facts and3. circumstances of the case and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we accept the contention of the party. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief." 2.Feeling aggrieved. Department has filed this petition under Section 35H of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e framed on the assumption that the Tribunal has granted relief without any justifiable reason. We find that Tribunal has in fact given a reason i.e., the disputed duty has been paid by the party even before the issue of show cause notice and this would show that there was no question of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. In fact, the Tribunal in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s case, held that where assessee deposits the duty even prior to the issue of a show cause notice, penalty should not be imposed and interest should not be levied. The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal filed against the said order. Therefore we find that order of the Tribunal is a reasoned order though brief and no question of law arises in regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
