TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of this case. 2. The respondent had removed certain inputs on which CENVAT Credit had been availed, by reversing the credit during the period 6-7-2000 to 15-5-2001. The departmental authorities required them to ensure that appropriate duty be paid on the inputs at normal tariff rate of duty on the assessable value determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The party accordingly determined the assessable value and found that the amount of CENVAT Credit reversed by them earlier was not enough. Therefore, they paid the differential amount of duty in June 2001 amounting to Rs. 2,19,208/-. A show-cause notice was issued by the department on 15-9-2004 proposing (a) to appropriate the above payment towards demand of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills -2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); and (iii) Commissioner v. Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 202 (Born). 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on Kaur & Singh v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.), in support of his submission that, as the show-cause notice did not allege fraud, collusion etc, it was not open to the department to insist on payment of penalty under Section 11AC. The learned Counsel has also sought to defend the Appellate Commissioner's decision on the relevant issues. 5. Both sides have referred to the provisions of Section 11A and Section 11AB of the Act, in the context of discussing the applicability of Section 11AB to this case. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 11-5-2001 under the Finance Act, 2001, reads thus:- "The provision of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where duty had become payable or ought to have been paid before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2001 receives the assent of the President." The Finance Act, 2001 came into force on 11-5-2001 with the assent of the President. Therefore, according to sub-section (2) of Section 11AB, no interest on duty can be levied under sub-section (1) for any period prior to 11-5-2001. The period of dispute in the instant case is 5-7-2000 to 15-5-2001, which, barring a few days, is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 11AB. Consequently, sub-section (1) of Section 11AB was not invocable against the respondents for recovery of interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of interest and recover the same from the respondent, in accordance with law. 6. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel, none of the ingredients for a penalty under Section 11AC was alleged in the show-cause notice. It is settled law that, in such a situation, no penalty could be imposed on the party under Section 11AC. This legal position has been reaffirmed by the apex court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), wherein, in the context of clarifying the earlier judgment in Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra), Their Lo-dships held that a penalty under Section 11AC could be imposed on an assessee, where any of the ingredients (fraud, collusion, suppression of facts etc.) laid down thereunder was est....