2015 (2) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorized Representative (DR) JUDGMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under. 2. The appellant are a sugar mill engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses chargeable to Central Excise duty. The period of dispute in this case is October to December 1997. During this period, the appellant, in terms of the orders of Central Government....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,24,697/- against the appellant under Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and appropriated the same amount already paid by the appellant towards this demand. In this order, however, beside the duty, he also demanded interest on this duty under Section 11AB and beside this, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that when the Central Government had reimbursed the price differential between the levy sugar and free sugar alongwith the duty, the duty demand has been correctly confirmed upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and since the duty had been short paid, the interest under Section 11AB and penal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Government. There is no dispute that the appellant have already paid this amount on 20th August 2002. Therefore, so far as the duty demand is concerned, the impugned order has to be upheld. 7. However, as regards the interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 173Q (1), the interest under Section 11AB during that period would be attracted only when any short payment of duty occurre....