2013 (12) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cross-objection is liable to be dismissed. He also submits that as revealed from the cross-objection that the assessee received the order on 20.3.2004 and cross-objection was filed on 11.4.2011. Thus there is a long delay, which cannot be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the respondent/assessee is a unit of National Textile Corporation (TN & P) Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. They have field cross-objection by letter form on 19.4.2004, which is within the stipulated period under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 He further submits that in order to avoid any legal complicity they filed the cross-objection on 11.4.2011 in proper format. He also submits that there is no de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id duty amount along with interest in PLA/cash and they shall be entitled to avail the credit of the amount paid in CENVAT credit. He dropped all further proceedings proposed in the show-cause notice. 7. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Noble Drugs Vs. CCE - 2007 (215) ELT 500 (Tri. - LB) held that during the period of forfeiture facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis, an assessee can discharge duty liability either out of PLA or by utilizing CENVAT credit and failure on his part to do so would not attract interest and penalty. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal also followed the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thanikudam Bhagawati ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deliberately reduced the value at the time of clearance from their factory gate, thus it is a case of evasion of duty and penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 is liable to be imposed. He further submits that Rule 173Q provided that if a manufacturer removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these Rules, then he shall be liable for penalty. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India - 1999 (112) ELT 772 (SC). 9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find force in the submission of the learned Advocate of the assessee. The respondent/assessee was one o....