TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1064
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. YDB/88/M-III/2009 dated 29-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. In the said order, the ld. Commissioner had confirmed payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the delayed payment of duty and had set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,87,296/- imposed by the adjudicating authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon the finalisation of the balance sheet, the department demanded differential duty for the period from April 2005 to March 2006 and an amount of Rs. 2,87,296/- was confirmed under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 29-2-2008. The said adjudicating authority also confirmed the demand for recovery of interest on the above amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment and on appeal, this Tribunal by order dated 25-4-2007 had allowed single registration. The department's appeal against the said order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay was dismissed on 30-8-2007 and thereafter a single registration for both the plants was granted. In other words, if the department had acceded to the request for grant of single registration in 2001 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Court judgment in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd., 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX = 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.); CCE v. International Auto Ltd., 2010 (250) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Raj Leather Cloth Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 2010 (256) E.L.T. 209 (P & H). 4. The appellant on the other hand would submit that this Tribunal in their own case wherein a similar issue had arisen regarding payment of ....