2013 (12) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer to the appellant's premises, it was noticed that the appellant had undervalued the goods removed on stock transfer basis during the period February, 2001 to August, 2005 to their sister concern for captive consumption. After detailed scrutiny of the transactions of the appellant, an excess duty worked out, short paid (including edu. Cess) was informed to the appellant, who agreed with the objection and paid up the differential duty. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 3.4.2006 was issued proposing to appropriate such an amount paid by the appellant, demanding interest and also for imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. The appellant contested the show-cause notice before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment of interest does not arise. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.-2012 (285) ELT 336 (Guj). 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, would submit that the show-cause notice, which is issued to the appellant, also covers the period within the limitation, in which case the appellant is required to pay interest on the said differential duty. It is his submission that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Vs. Padmashri V.V. Patil SSK Ltd. -2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom) has specifically sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;  10. In essence, what sub-section (2) of Section 11A provides for is for non-issuance of notice by the Central Excise Officer to the extent a manufacturer might have voluntarily paid duty even before issuance of show cause notice. When Explanation-2 provides that said provision would not apply in case of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression and intention to evade duty, it clearly means that sub-section (2B) is applicable where the normal period of limitation of 1 year is provided.          11. In the present case, when the period of limitation had already expired and when the extended period beyond one year was not available to the department as held by the Commissioner hims....