TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led products of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 10,87,567/- on 05.09.2016, on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur, vide Order-in-original No. 10 to 148/ Demand/2016 dated 22.07.2016, had dropped the penalty and interest imposed in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 24.11.2015. Further, the appellant had deposited the interest and penalty against the following Orders-in-original involved in the Order-in-original No. 10 to 148/Demand/ 2016 dated 22.07.2016:- Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Amount deposited Interest (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1 105/2000 dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 5 326/2000 dt.16.10.2000 28,268/- 3,000/- Total 4,42,288/- 25,000/- As such, it appeared that the appellant had deposited the amount of Central Excise Duty, penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant also deposited the interest of Rs. 10,62,567/- under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur contained in his aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2012. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur vide OIO No. 10-148/2016 dated 22.07.2016 dropped the proceedings initiated for imposition of penalty and recovery of interest und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. Hence, I am inclined to hold that the refund of Rs. 10,62,597/- is admissible to the appellant. iii) Now, coming to the issue of refund of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I find that the adjudicating authority had imposed the penalty upon the appellant under the OIOs and the same was deposited by the appellant as per the OIOs. It is not on the record that the appellant had gone in appeal against the said OIOs or the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur's letter C. No. IV(16)05/Tech-I/Div.I/2012/1521 dated 21.03.2012 and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur vide OIO No. 10-148/2016 dated 22.07.2016 dropped the proceedings ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed refund pursuant to Order-in-original dated 22.07.2016 (pursuant to remand) whereas Order-in-original No. 326/2000 dt. 16.10.2000 was not in issue in the remanded Order-in-original. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of Hot Re-rolled products of Iron and Steel and was operating under 'Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997' wherein pursuant to separate Order-in-original an amount of duty of Rs. 3 lakhs was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q, but the charging of interest and penalty under 4th proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was kept in abeyance in view of the general direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 173Q. On the one hand, he has observed that charging of penalty under Rule 173Q have been held to be ab initio void by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mills (supra), whereas on the other hand, he has erred in observing that the appellant-assessee is not entitled to refund as appellant has not filed any appeal for such penalty, though the matter was sub-judice and subsequently re-adjudicated pursuant to remand, in the Order-in-original dated 22.07.2016. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with appropriate relief. 8. Learned Authorised Representative Shri Yashveer Singh for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that it is admitted fact on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|