Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 284 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (8) TMI 284 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - 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 ORDE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conducted by the Central Excise, Madurai, 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 date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of facts in order to avoid payment of 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The ld. Counsel argued that the duty was paid 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version