Remand for further scrutiny due to BIFR scheme compliance impact on penalty waiver. Impugned order set aside.

The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further scrutiny as the Tribunal found that the appellant's compliance with the BIFR scheme could impact the waiver of penalty and interest. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the subsequent developments. All issues were kept open, emphasizing a fair hearing opportunity for the Appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of duty liability, imposition of penalty, appeal against Order-in-Appeal, compliance with BIFR rehabilitation scheme, waiver of interest and penalty, remand for fresh examination.

Violation of Duty Liability:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper boards, defaulted in discharging monthly duty liability for a specific period, leading to the requirement of duty payment on each consignment without utilizing CENVAT Credit. Show Cause Notices were issued, resulting in duty confirmation, penalty imposition, and interest recovery under Section 11AB of CEA, 1944. Appeals were made to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders, which were rejected, prompting the present appeals.

Compliance with BIFR Rehabilitation Scheme:
The appellant submitted that their Application under SICA was pending before BIFR when the impugned order was passed. The BIFR later sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme allowing payment of outstanding duty within three years, utilization of CENVAT Credit, and waiver of interest and penalty for three years from scheme sanction. The appellant claimed to have paid all dues within the stipulated period, seeking waiver of interest and penalty based on the BIFR scheme. The Ld. Advocate referred to a Tribunal decision and agreed to remand the case for examination since the BIFR order was subsequent to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Remand for Fresh Examination:
Both parties agreed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the BIFR order due to its timing after the appeal decision. The Tribunal found that the appellant's compliance with the BIFR scheme could impact the waiver of penalty and interest. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the subsequent developments. All issues were kept open, emphasizing a fair hearing opportunity for the Appellant. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further scrutiny.

---