TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This appeal is directed against the OIA No. 22/2007(V-I)-CE dated 25-6-2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are :- The appellants are manufacturers of Kraft paper falling under Ch. Sh. No. 4804.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 they have opted for exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1-3-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er on various grounds. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions made by the appellant before him came to the conclusion that the contentions of the appellants needs to be rejected and rejected the same and upheld the order-in-original. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel would submit that the challenge of the appellant is only to the interest towards the delayed payment and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence penalty imposed is correct. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. We find that the appellants had opted for an exemption from payment of Central Excise duty during the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 basing on the quantity based exemption notification. If that be so, it was the duty of the appellant to reverse the credit attributable on the inputs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty, we find that the show cause notice seeks to invoke provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for imposition of penalty on the appellant for the equivalent amount of interest not paid by the appellant. In our considered opinion this is incorrect as the demand of the interest cannot be considered as demand of duty. We also ....