TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had not paid the amount of ₹ 9,88,236/- as on 23.01.2006, which was ultimately confirmed by the Tribunal, in disposing their appeal by Order dt.29.06.2012 and reversed by the Appellant on 10.09.2012, pursuant to the said Order. Whether benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty be extended to the appellant considering adjustment of interest from the pre-deposit amount? - Held that: - the appellant is required to pay interest till 23.01.2006 and consequently, also eligible to claim the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty of ₹ 9,88,236/-, since, they complied with the direction of the Tribunal Order dated 29.06.2012, in the sense that the required amount due pursuant to the said Order was lying with the department as on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,236/- on 10.09.2012 and through their letter dt. 17.09.2012 requested that from the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 50.00 lakhs, 25% of penalty and interest amount be adjusted. Later, the appellant filed a refund claim on 03.10.2012 for ₹ 41,41,208/- after adjusting their liability towards interest and penalty against the pre-deposit of ₹ 50.00 Lakhs made on 23.01.2006. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 25,47,557/- against the pre-deposit amount after deducting penalty of ₹ 9,88,236/- and interest of ₹ 14,64,207/-. In their Letter dated 24.12.2012 elaborating further, the appellant had submitted that interest payable on the amount of ₹ 9,88,236/- for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of credit. In support the Ld. Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2010 (9) TMI 748 - Patna High Court and also the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2007 (213) E.L.T. 603 (Tri. - Bang.). 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the amount was directed to be deposited by the Tribunal on 23.01.2006, not to be treated as duty but a deposit against the confirmed liability and hence cannot be considered as final payment towards discharge of duty, interest and penalty confirmed. The amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered one, but subject to conditions. The conditions laid down at Section 35F of CEA, 1944 is very clear. Before approaching the Tribunal by filing Appeal under Sec.35B of CEA,1944, the appellant is required to deposit the entire dues confirmed by the concerned authority in the Order which is Appealed against. However, discretion is with the Tribunal to reduce the said amount considering the circumstance of the case. In the present case, though the appellant was required to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty, however, the Tribunal has reduced the said pre-deposit amount to ₹ 50.00 Lakhs against the confirmed liability of ₹ 2.64 crores. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the appellant had not paid the amount of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
