TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, invoking the extended period of limitation, for appropriating the above payment (Rs. 2,13,775/-) towards demand of duty for the above period, levying interest on the duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and for imposing penalties on the party under Section 11AC of the Act and under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty, appropriated the payment towards such demand, asked the assessee to pay interest on the amount and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25. The authority refrained from imposing penalty on the assessee under Section 11AC after taking the view that any deliberate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11AB of the Act on the amount of duty non-paid on account of suppression of facts. It is submitted that the above payment of duty is one made under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A and, therefore, the assessee has liability to pay interest under Section 11AB on the amount of duty paid. Learned SDR has reiterated these grounds of the appeal. Learned counsel has argued in defence of the appellate Commissioner s order. 3. After considering the submissions, I find that the payment of duty of Rs. 2,13,775/-, made on 17-6-2004, is for the entire period of dispute (1-4-2003 to 19-10-2003). The show-cause notice was issued on 29-12-2004. The demand for the extended period of limitation was set aside by the lower appellate authority after fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority held against the assessee on these issues, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty. The order of the appellate authority is silent on the interest issue. 4. I have found no valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the question whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in this case. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the requisite declaration for SSI benefit at the commencement of the financial year. They also filed ER-1 returns on quarterly basis. These were enough for the department to detect any non-payment or short-payment of duty. It, therefore, cannot be said that the assessee suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of duty by wrongly availing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
