9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit is reversed even before utilising the Cenvat credit. As regards the other two show-cause notices dated 27.02.2006 and 20.09.2006, the issues are regarding demand of interest and penalty for delay in payment of differential excise duty due to dispute on the inclusion of the terminal charges in the assessable value and due to price revision of petroleum products with retrospective effect, respectively. 2. The brief facts are M/s. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., (MRPL), the appellant is a Limited Company engaged in refining crude and manufacturing petroleum products. Appellant were issued with show-cause notice on 04.12.2006 alleging on that on scrutiny of ER-1 returns filed by the appellant for the period from January 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, respectively. 4. The Adjudication authority vide Order-in-Original No. 37/2012 dated 14.09.2012 confirmed the demands of interest made in all the 3(three) show-cause notices and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 25 in the case of show cause notices dated 04.12.2006 and 20.09.2006 and dropped the proposal for penalty under Rule 27 in show cause notices dated 04.12.2006 and 27.02.2006. Aggrieved by same, appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel as regards interest liability on Cenvat credit availed in books and reversed without utilization, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka and others -(2021) 12 SCC 812, Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C) and Steel Authority of India Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2019 (366) E.L.T. 769 (S.C). 7. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that once the goods are removed and duty is not paid, the respondent is liable to pay duty with interest as applicable. In the present case, though they have paid excise duty as applicable they are liable to pay interest and adjudication authority rightly confirmed demand of interest and imposed penalty. Learned AR further submits that the issue regarding payment of differential duty and interest is settled by the judgment of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute on these two issues. We find that the appellant has paid the differential duties and is only contesting the payment of interest and imposition of penalty. We find that since there is no limitation prescribed under the statute for payment of interest and there is no interest on the interest, the appellant is liable to pay interest for the period of delay in payment of differential duty, we find that once the differential duty is paid, consequentially the interest for the delayed payment need to be paid, hence we find that the interest on delayed payment of duties in these two show cause notices was rightly confirmed by the Adjudicating and the Appellate authorities and is tenable. As regards the imposition of penalty under Rules 25 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
