9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnagar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Appeal filed by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking, is against a demand of interest on duty for the period 20-3-2001 to 21-4-2001 as also against a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on them by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. Examined the records and heard both the sides. The Counsel has given a brief accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire amount of duty. The only issues which subsisted for adjudication were whether the appellants were liable to pay interest under Section 11AB on the amount of duty paid for the period 20-3-2001 to 21-4-2001 and whether any penalty was liable to be imposed on them. In adjudication of these issues, the Commissioner ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB from the party and imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect. 3. I have to accept the argument of the Counsel inasmuch as there is nothing in the amended Section 11AB to indicate that the amendment had any retrospective effect. Under the unamended Section 11AB, interest could be levied on duty of excise only on the ground of fraud, collusion, suppression or mis-statement which were sine qua non for such levy. None of these pre-conditions was all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of a bona fide belief that, in respect of the goods cleared to West Bengal State Electricity Board, the appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. It is further submitted that Rule 173Q, which has been invoked for penalizing the appellants, was not in force during the period of dispute. The DR opposes this argument and submits that Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
