TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11A shall be counted from the date of receipt of the information/intimation from an assessee. Therefore, the demand of interest has to be considered as demand of duty to which Section 11A ibid is applicable. Having said that relevant date for calculating period of 1(one) year for demanding interest will have to be calculated w.e.f. 26.06.2009 when Appellant intimated the Department about the payment of duty. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.06.2010 which is within a period 1(one) year from the date of intimation (26.06.2009) given by the Appellant. Accordingly it is held that demand issued to the Appellant is not time barred and has been correctly confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Imposition of penalty - Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.06.2010 which is after a period of 1(one) year as contemplated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is thus the case of the Appellant that for demanding interest also the Show Cause Notice was required to be issued within 1(one) year from the date of filing such return. He relied upon the case law of Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat-I vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. [2010 (256) ELT 369(Guj.)] to argue that 'date of knowledge' has no mention in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is further the case of the Appellant that the entire amount was suo motu paid and accordingly extended period cannot be invoked and demand of interest raised after a period of 1(one) year is time barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merits regarding taking of Cenvat Credit. The entire amount was suo motu paid by the Appellant and an intimation to that effect was given to the Department by their letter dated 26.06.2009. Appellant is contesting the following two issues:- i) That demand of interest has been issued after a period of 1(one) year from the date of payment of confirmed demand and is time barred. ii) That maximum penalty imposable under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period was only ₹ 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) and not ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as decided by the First Appellate Authority. 5. So far as imposition of penalty to the extent of ₹ 2,000/-(Rupees Two Two Thousand only) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty, and inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty so paid: Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short payment of duty, if any, which in his opinion has not been paid by such person and, then, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period of one year referred to in sub-section (1) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment. 6.1 As per the provisions of Sub-section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is not time barred and has been correctly confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The case law of Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat-I vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI vs. ITC Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the existing facts because the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not deliberated by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of C.Ex., Surat-I vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and it was only decided that date of knowledge of the department is not the relevant date under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case it is not the presumed knowledge of the department but written intimation given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
