TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e brief facts are that M/s.Nirmala Filaments (India) Private Limited, Coimbatore, the petitioners herein is a manufacturer of Nylon Monofilament Yarn of cross sectional dimension upto 1 mm and above 1mm, falling under Chapter heading 5404.10 and 3916.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1994 respectively. During the relevant period Nylon Monofilament Yarn of cross sectional dimension upto 1 mm and above 1mm was subjected to duty of excise. A show cause notice was issued, alleging that the petitioner has cleared such Yarn in the guise of Yarn of Cross Sectional dimension less than 1 mm, without payment of duty of excise and thereby demanded duty of excise to the tune of Rs. 40,55,655/- apart from interest and penalty. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that without complying the Admission-cum-Final Order dated 20.12.2007, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition before the 1st respondent for modification of the order. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 23,05,625/- towards duty settled by the Commission, leaving a balance of Rs. 99,833/-. In terms of the order passed by the Commission, the Respondent Departments calculated the interest payable by the petitioner and worked out at Rs. 8,41,472/- and requested the petitioner to pay the same by communication dated 31.01.2008. In the meanwhile the petitioner had de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the government was certainly deprived of the revenue due from the relevant period till the amount was actually paid much less through cash or through availment of cenvant credit as such, the petitioner is liable to pay the interest. The petitioner filed the miscellaneous petition, praying not only for re-quantification of interest demanded but also penalty imposed which clearly amounts to requiring the Commission for reviewing their own order, to which, they are not empowered. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the entire record. 5. Mr.S.Jaikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contentions, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the impugned order and consequently, direct the respondents to grant immunity of interest and the penalty. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the avernments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Settlement Commission is very categorical that the total liability is settled at Rs. 36,90,325/- and the petitioner shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the duty settled from the date when the duty became due till the date of actual payment and the contention of the petitioner that availing of the cenvat credit during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out that the terms of the order of settlement regarding payment of the duty are not complied with. Sub- section (3) also provides for withdrawal of the immunity if the CCESC is satisfied that it was obtained by concealment of material particulars or by giving false evidence. 8. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to venture upon examining the decision making process followed by the CCESC in the present case. As regards the imposition of interest and penalty of Rs. 8,41,472/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- on the petitioner, I am unable to find fault with the decision-making process adopted by the CCESC. In fact, a perusal of the record, it reveals that during investigation, it was found that the petitioner had indulged in ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot proper, the applicant shall pay the balance amount. The Bench observes that the application fulfils the conditions stipulated for admission and also that the Advocate accepted the revised demand of Rs. 36,90-,325/- and have undertaken to pay the balance amount of Rs. 99,833/-. In view of the foregoing and the co-operation extended by the applicant, the Bench takes the view that this case merits admission and final settlement. However, with regard to immunity from interest, the Bench observed that the applicant enjoyed substantial financial accommodation over the period of time and hence, the applicant should pay simple interest. With regard to penalty, the department representative stated that deterrent penalty should be imposed as there....