9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-C.E., dated 7-2-2005 -Nil- 10,000/- 3. E/891/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 14,34,437/-11,74,686/- 14,34,437/-11,74,686/- 4. E/892/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 -Nil- 2,00,000/- 5. E/896/2008 135/2008, dated 17-9-2008 -Nil- 50,000/- 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration in all these appeals, are that the appellants are the manufacturers of railway sleepers, basically used by the Indian Railways. Whereas, the assessee had filed price list No. 1/93-94 dated 11-12-1993 for the MC inserts. This was pending approval with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Malenadu Division, which was subsequently approved, thereby resulting in payment of differential excise duty of Rs. 14,34,437/- for the period from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir request. The party vide its letter dated 24-11-98 contended that there was no demand made in the RT 12 and only after the finalization of price list the endorsement were made in the RT 12. Also, they contended that no show cause notice was issued and therefore the differential duty not payable by them. Meanwhile, the assessee had availed suo motu credit of 11,47,686/- in PLA vide entry Sl. No. 1393 dated 6-3-96 by intimating the Division and Range Office. In reply, Division office, informed the assessee that the credit in PLA cannot be availed without the permission of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the credit so availed was irregular and illegal. The assessee has also used this credit towards the payment of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT order, an amount of Rs. 3,94,405/- was paid towards interest for the delayed period from 28-3-1996 to the assessee on 22-6-2006 vide Order-in-Original No. 11/2006 dated 22-6-2006. 2.5 Aggrieved by the CESTAT order stated above in respect of the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 14,34,437/- and appropriation of refund amount of Rs. 11,74,686/- towards the Central Excise duty, the assessee filed an appeal No. 70/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 2.6 The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 2-3-2007 set aside all the orders passed by the assessing authority, by the appellate authority and tribunals and directed to issue fresh notice towards the demand of the Central Excise and adjudicate afresh within certain time limit. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the submissions made before him, upheld the Orders-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant in Appeals Nos. 891/2008, 892 and 896/2008. In Appeal Nos. E/453 & 454/2005, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant-company, but reduced the penalty imposed on one of the officers of the company and set aside the penalty on them. 2.9 The appellant-company as well as the individuals aggrieved by this order are in appeal before us. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the appellants takes us through the entire record. It is his submission that the entire issue started with the appropriation of an amount by the Adjudicating Authority against the dues. He would submit that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered is whether the appellant is liable for payment of Rs. 14,34,437/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs thirty-four thousand four hundred and thirty-seven only) which was raised on the assessment of RT 12 Returns. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that the Order-in-Original No. 2/95 dated 6-2-1995, which may find mentioned in the impugned orders is nothing but a finalization of a deductions claimed by the appellant in the price list. Consequent to such deductions, the RT 12 Returns were finalized. We find that this submission needs consideration by the lower authority. We also find from the record that the Department issued a show cause notice dated 10-5-2007 as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court. The said show cause notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re filed by the officers of the company against the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the confirmation of the demand of duty on the finalization of the provisional assessment. By any stretch of imagination, this activity cannot be considered as liable for penalty under provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the penalties imposed on the officers of the company are unwarranted and the appeals filed by them in Appeal Nos. 892 & 896/2008 needs to be allowed and we do so. 8. All the appeals are disposed off as indicated herein above. (Operative portion of this order pronounced on conclusion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
