TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14% thereby leading to the short payment of duty - Held that: - the impugned order alleging suppression by the appellant is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant had a bona fide belief that the rate of duty as applicable at the time of raising the supplementary invoice and paid the said duty and also subsequently reversed the proportionate credit along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 17/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner(AppeaIs) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of Tilled Gears and Tractor Gears falling under Chapter84 and 87 of CETA, 1985. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The Department issued show-cause notice dt. 13/09/2010 demanding differential duty amounting to ₹ 1,19,592/- along with interest (for September 2008, October 2008 and December 2008) and also demanded interest amount of ₹ 22,774/- on the differential duty paid during the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 and proposed to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of time. He further submitted that there is no suppression of facts and the appellant cleared the goods under a bona fide belief. Further the appellant had reversed the proportionate credit along with interest on 13/06/2012. 5. After considering the submissions of both parties, I find that the impugned order alleging suppression by the appellant is not tenable in the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been settled by the apex court, by following the ratio of the said decision, I hold that in the present case also, the assessee is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of differential duty. As far as penalty is concerned, since there was no suppression on the part of the appellant and the appellant paid the duty after finalization of price, I do not think it appropriate to impose penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
