Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Raipur vs M/S. Satish Steel Industries on 2 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2314-2315/2010-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 151/RPR-I/2010 dated 15.04.2010 passed by CCE, Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Raipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Satish Steel Industries Respondents
Appearance:
Shri P.K. Sharma, AR for the Appellant Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Respondent Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 02.07.2013 FINAL ORDER NO 56868-56869/2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have gone through the impugned order and heard Shri P.K. Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Manish Saharan learned advocate appearing for the Respondent.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals), while upholding the confirmation of demand of duty and interest has held that 25% of penalty is justified inasmuch as the respondent had deposited the entire amount of duty and interest as also 25% of penalty within on 30 days the receipt of show cause notice and as such benefit of provisions of section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act is available to the respondent.
3. Revenues only contention is such duty was paid under protest and as such conditional payment of duty do not satisfy the provisions of section 11A (2). I find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue. There is nothing in said section to suggest that if the duty and interest and 25% penalty is deposited under protest, the benefit of the said section would not be available to the assessee. I find no merit in the Revenues contention. Their appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounce in the open Court on) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3