TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit of Rs. 6,311/- on short receipt of inputs and also undervalued goods cleared as free replacement, resulting in short payment of Central Excise duty to the extent of Rs. 40,805/- + Education Cess Rs. 297/-. On being pointing out by audit, the appellant made goods the short payment by making payment thereof, but failed to pay the appropriate amount of interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A show cause notice dated 18-7-2006 proposing to demand interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to impose penalty under Section 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was issued and was decided through the impugned order, confirming the demand of interest under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the CBEC Circular dated 16-7-2002 and various decisions of this Tribunal. It is his submission that, despite this, since the amount involved was very meager, they have paid the entire amount of the duty and Education cess voluntarily vide Cenvat Register Entry Sl. No. 31680, dated 25-7-2005. As regards the reversal of Cenvat Credit against short receipt of the Condenser on which credit was available, it is the submission that they have taken the credit as they have paid the amount on the import of such Condenser which was not received but they have shown in the accounts as "Claims Receivable Account from Customs" and does not include the Cenvat availed element. It is the submission that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the lower authority is demanding interest and for imposition of penalties. It is seen from the records, as submitted by the appellant's representative, that they are not challenging the amount of duty reversed/paid by them before the adjudication proceedings. They are only challenging the liability of interest and the penalty imposed on them under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. Since the appellant is not challenging the amount of duty paid by them during the pendency of the proceedings before the lower authority, we uphold the confirmation of demand and hold that the appellant having not challenged the duty liability, is liable to pay the interest as has been adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal filed by the....