Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Moulders India on 30 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/989/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKD(75)49/2007 dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Appellant Vs. M/s Moulders India Respondents Appearance:
Shri S.M. Vaidya JDR for Appellant None (written submission) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 30.12.2009 Date of Decision: 30.12.2009 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2009 Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the setting aside of the Order-in-Original, wherein interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Rule 27 was imposed.
2. None appeared for the respondent. However, the respondent preferred to file written submissions, which are taken on record. The learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. He relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX, wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that interest is leviable on delayed payment of duty for whatever reasons. In that event, he submitted that the impugned order be set aside. With regard to the penalty, he submitted that in the case of UOI Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), the Apex Court has held that if the duty demand is confirmed, the mandatory penalty equal to the duty demand is to be imposed.
3. Heard.
4. I have gone through the written submissions. I find that the Apex Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. (supra) has held that interest is leviable on delayed payment of duty for whatever reasons. Accordingly, the demand of interest is confirmed.
5. With regard to the penalty, I do not find any suppression of facts and the facts are that the price was increased with retrospective effect on negotiation between the parties. Hence, there is no suppression of facts. In that event, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be imposed upon the respondent. With these findings, the appeal is partly allowed.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Vks/ 1