TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty it is legally recoverable - appeal partly allowed in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/949/06 - Order No. A/94518/16/EB - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The predecessor company M/s. Shetye Ispat Ltd. Usgaon, Goa, however, the appellant did not pay the duty in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore various show cause notices were issued. By the adjudication order dt. 31.3.2004, the demand was confirmed and interest as well as penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs was also imposed. Being aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt while deciding the case framed two questions: (1) whether omission of the compounded levy scheme in 2001 wipes out the liability of the assessee for the period during which the scheme was in operation, and (2) whether the letter of demand of interest for delayed payment was liable to be set aside on the ground of delay We observed that the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra), the following paragraph are reproduced below: 31. Applying the Constitution Bench decision stated above, it will have to be declared that since Section 3A which provides for a separate scheme for availing facilities under a compound levy scheme does not itself provide for the levying of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the other appeals which concern themselves with penalties that are leviable under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ. Since the lead judgment is a detailed judgment by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court reported in Krishna Processors v. Union of India, 2012 (280) E.L.T. 186 (Guj.) and followed by other High Courts, we will refer only to this decision. 33. On the facts before the Gujarat High Court, there were three civil applications each of which challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid rules insofar as they prescribed the imposition of a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding without any discretion to reduce the same depending upon the time taken to deposit the duty. The Gujarat High Court struck down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
