TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suppression of the relevant transactions and that therefore the demand of Rs. 8,21,876/- was confirmed while reducing the penalty to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh. The Original Authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,79,660/- and also imposed penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the demand for the period 1999-2000 till June, 2001 was not sustainable as there was no machinery provision under the Central Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder for the recovery of the amount of 8% of the sale value of the final product payable in terms of proviso to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules prior to 1st July, 2001. 2. When the matter came up for final hearing on 14th October, 2009, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nery provision for recovery of the amount payable in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules read with Rule 57-CC and/or Rule 57-AD of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. The learned Advocate drawing out attention to Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 submitted that under the said provision of law, the Parliament had specifically introduced the machinery provision for enforcement of the obligation of the manufacturer in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules read with Rule 57-CC and Rule 57-AD of the said Rules and the same was made enforceable retrospectively. Drawing our attention to the relevant amendment as incorporated under Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 and particularly to the Fourth Schedule thereof, the learned Advocate subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....machinery for realisation of 8% amount in terms of Rule 57-AD was provided in the Central Excise Rules, 1944 themselves. Being so, according to the learned DR, the impugned order for the period prior to 1st July, 2001 should be set aside and the order in that relation of the original authority should be confirmed. 8. Learned Advocate also submitted that provision of law as far as they relate to the liability to pay the amount of 8% of the value of the final product in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules or the corresponding Rule 57-AD and 57-CC are concerned, there is no provision for imposition of penalty as such in relation to the failure to pay the same or in case of delay in demand thereof. Being so, according to the learned Advocate, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, would apply to the matter in hand. Obviously, therefore, the finding that the respondent was not liable to pay the said amount in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules or the Rule 6, 57-CC or 57-AD prior to 1st July, 2000 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside while restoring the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority. 10. It is true that we are dealing with the appeal filed by the Department and the assessee has not filed any appeal or cross objection in the matter. However, as the appellant has brought to our notice the fact that the authorities below have proceeded to impose penalty inspite of the fact that in such cases, there cannot be any occasion for imposition of penalty in view of the fact that the failure and....