Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 646 - CESTAT CHENNAINon-payment of differential duty which arose during the period from 1.3.2011 to 28.2.2013 on account of increase in duty rates on "Tapioca Sago" falling under Chapter Heading 1903 0000 - Held that: - It is not in dispute that differential duty liability arose on account of increase in duty rates on Tapioca Sago during the period 1.3.2011 to 28.2.2013. It is also not in dispute that in respect of two of the appellants i.e. appellants M/s. Arulmurugan Sago Factory and M/s. Sri Balamurugan Sago Factory (Appellants 2 & 3), entire duty liability along with interest has been discharged before issue of SCN thereon and in respect of appellant No.1 in appeal No.E/40034/2016, almost 98% of such liability has been discharged - This being the case, it would have been most appropriate if the SCNs had not been issued in these cases. Instead, these Appellants perforce have been required to come before this forum for relief. In the circumstances, while there is no two opinion that the differential duty has been discharged by the appellant on being pointed out, along with interest amounts thereon, issue of SCNs for imposition of penalties under Section 11AC is an overkill. Penalty has also been imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for not taking registration. When in the first place there was no requirement of issue of SCN itself, penalties will not survive particularly as there was some confusion on the duty rates and the continued eligibility of SSI concessions for these appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|