TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities - levy of interest upheld and penalty deleted - appeal allowed in part. - C.M.A. Nos. 1637-1638 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Anita Sumanth, JJ. Shri Muthu Venkataraman assisted by Ms. Cynduja Crishnan for M/s. Mohammed Shaffizn, for the Appellant. Shri T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Anita Sumanth, J.]. - These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals come to us at the instance of the assessee, challenging an order of the CESTAT dated 20-1-2011, raising the following substantial questions of law for adjudication : 1. Whether the order of the Tribunal confirming the levy of interest is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it fails to see that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of delay in payment in terms of Section 11AB has been remitted. The order-in-original confirms the demand of duty of an amount of ₹ 8,30,264/- invoking the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Act along with interest and penalty in terms of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Act respectively. 2. (b) In appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) the levy of interest was confirmed and the levy of penalty of an amount of ₹ 8,30,264/- under Section 11AC of the Act was reversed on the ground that the pre-conditions for the levy did not exist in the present case. 2. (c) In further appeal before the CESTAT by the assessee and the revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the levy of interest but restored the levy of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wenty-five per cent of the duty so determined. 5. The assessee would argue that in terms of the proviso to Section 11AC of the Act, where the duty determined in terms of Section 11A(2) of the Act has been paid and the interest payable in terms of Section 11AB also remitted within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of the Authority, the amount of penalty liable to be paid shall be twenty-five per cent of the duty so determined. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 is relied upon in support of the applicability of the proviso. 6. Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Learned Counsel appearing for the department would however point out that two pre-condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
