TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 1997 to February 2002. As per the amendment in Finance Act, 2005, the appellant was required to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods or reversed the same. The same was not done, therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The demand was confirmed to the extent that an amount equivalent to 8% of the goods cleared under above said notification alongwith interest and imposed penalty. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is not contesting the reversal of 8% amount of the exempted goods but only contesting payment of interest and penalty. It is his contention that the Finance Act, 2005 made with retrospective amendment, in that circumstances, the charges of suppression is not sustainab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect." Which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Pushti Refineries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bangalore-I (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: "3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that this Tribunal in the case of Premier Industries Ltd. had considered the very same issue. The Tribunal observed that the amendment of Chapter 15 came on 13-5-2005 with retrospective effect and since the duty was levied with retrospective effect consequent u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uncement as discussed above, I hold that interest is not chargeable from the appellant in this case. 8. On the issue of penalty, I find that in appellant's own case this Tribunal has observed as under:- "8. Perusal of the impugned orders, apparently, disclose that the demand @ 8% of the price of the goods cleared during the relevant period was made and has been confirmed solely on the ground that the appellants failed to maintain separate accounts in relation to the inputs utilized in the manufacture of dutiable final products and for those inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Obviously, it was on account of non-compliance of the requirement under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 9. Rule 13(2) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants are justified that in the absence of any finding on any of the above mentioned aspects, the authorities could not have imposed the penalty. 10. In the result, therefore, the appeals partly succeed as far as it relate to the imposition of penalty is concerned. Hence, the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned orders to the extent of imposition of penalty is concerned are hereby quashed and set aside. No further interference is called for in the impugned orders. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms." Further in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal further observed as under:- "The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner where....