Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sundram Fasteners Ltd. Versus CCE, Madurai

2016 (8) TMI 284 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Levy of penalty - interest on Differential duty paid on supplementary invoices paid after demand raised Held that: non payment of interest was not deliberate. Also when demanded the interest was paid - Penalty not to be imposed decided in favor of appellant. - E/41441/2015 - Final Order No. 41018/2016 - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri M. Kannan, Adv For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER M/s. Sundram Fasteners Ltd., the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it was noticed that the appellant assessee raised supplementary invoices due to escalation in the cost of raw materials as per the agreement entered with them and they have been regularly paying duty on the value of the supplementary invoices so raised. It seems that the appellants have not paid interest on excise duty short levied or short paid till the audit pointed out and subsequently paid an amount of ₹ 2,49,126/- through various challans dated 20.11.12, 21.11.12 and 22.11.12. As per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appropriate interest on the differential central excise duty paid on the supplementary invoices raised by them. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of recovery of interest of ₹ 2,49,108/- for the month of February, 2012 and April, 2012 to October, 2012 and appropriated ₹ 2,49,126/- towards the demand and imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid soon after raising the supplementary invoices and intimated accordingly, provisions of Section 11A (4) and 11A (5) cannot be invoked for suppression of facts. He further submits that non-payment of interest is not deliberate but it was only a mistake on the part of the appellants for which penalty should not be imposed on them. He also submits that the appellants paid the interest on the differential duty soon after it was pointed out to them and it should be treated as a belated payment and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version