TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible to avail Cenvat credit of the duty paid on such machinery parts - provisions of Section 11AB were very clear that any duty liability discharged by an assessee, interest liability automatically arises - respondents are directed to pay the interest on the amount of differential duty discharged by them and the appeal filed by Revenue to that extent is allowed while the appeal against the impugned order in respect of setting aside of the penalty and setting aside of the confiscation is rejected - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - E/36/2006 - Final Order No. A/2153/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 28-11-2011 - Shri M.V. Ravindran and Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri S.K. Mall, AR, for the Appellant. Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC on the ground that respondent has paid duty before issue of show cause notice. It is his submission that the respondents have not correctly valued the goods cleared by them. It is also his submission that in any case, having not correctly valued the goods, they are liable to pay the penalty. It is his further submission that respondent is liable to pay interest on the amount which he has deposited as differential duty which has been incorrectly set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further he would also submit that learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside of the confiscation is incorrect. 4. Learned counsel would rely u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arts on payment of duty, valuing the same as per his understanding of the law during the relevant time. It is also to be noted that when there was no seizure of the goods the question of confiscation does not arise as held by the Larger Bench in the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nasik [2009 (235) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-LB)]. 6. As regards the imposition of penalty, we find that judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajastan Spinning Mills [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] has to be considered by us. In the said judgment, Apex Court has specifically settled the law, as to that the lower authority should consider whether the ingredients of Section 11AC are present for imposition of penalties. The ingredients that nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
