TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Further, in the absence of any mensrea on the part of the appellant penalty is not imposable which is evident that after allowing deemed credit to the appellants, appellant has paid duty in excess. Therefore, malafides were not proved against the appellant. In these circumstances, penalty is also not imposable - Demand of interest and penalty are not sustainable on the appellant - Decided in favour of favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/3266/2006-EX(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 52240/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 10-7-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. Khanna, Proxy Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jinda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded matter back to the Adjudicating authority observing that as per notification 58/97-CE dated 30.08.1997 the deemed credit of duty at the rate of 12% of the value of HR Strips is entitled for deemed credit to the manufacturer of tubes. Therefore, duty was sought to be re-determined and matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. In remand proceedings again duty paid by the appellant was adjusted wherein the appellant paid excess duty of ₹ 17,640/- but demand of interest was confirmed and penalty equivalent to duty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order of demanding interest and imposition of penalty, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per section 3A for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther in the facts and circumstances of the case demand of interest and imposition of penalty by the lower authorities are sustainable or not. In fact, for the period where duty is demanded the appellant were required to pay a sum of ₹ 6,67,400/- whereas they are entitled for deemed credit during the period is ₹ 7,09,817/-. Therefore, the appellant have entitled more credit than the payment of duty. Moreover, appellant has paid excess duty of ₹ 17,640/- during the impugned period as per the calculations. In these circumstances, we hold that interest is not payable by the appellant. Further, in the absence of any mensrea on the part of the appellant penalty is not imposable which is evident that after allowing deemed credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
