TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst them in show cause notice dated 13th May 2014 as provided for in proviso to section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the contention of the appellant that they had discharged the duty liability on 20th June 2014, along with applicable interest and 25% of the mandatory penalty, in consequence of which the proceedings against them should have concluded. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of steel ingots and billets and, on investigation of alleged illicit clearance of downstream products by their customer show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty on billets allegedly supplied by the appellant without any documentation. 3. On behalf of appellant, it is contended that the imposition of redemption fine should have been set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of custom authority to levy redemption fine. A reading of the judgment/order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (supra), would show that the Apex Court has taken the view that redemption fine can be imposed even in the absence of the goods as the goods were released to the appellant on an application made by it and on the appellant executing a bond. Since the goods were released on a bond the position is as if the goods were available. The ratio of the above decision cannot be understood that in all cases the goods were permitted to be cleared initially and later proceedings were taken for under-valuation or other irregularity, even then redemption fine could be imposed. We are, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the findings of the lower authorities,the challenge to the main allegation of illicit removal does not sustain. 6. The claim of the appellant for conclusion of proceedings was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the interest liability had not been discharged in full. This conclusion was justified on the ground that the rate of interest of 13%, effective since 12th September 2003, had been enhanced to 18% with effect from the 1st April 2011 vide notification no. 6/2011-CE (NT) dated 1st March 2011. 7. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that this computation of interest liability is erroneous as the former rate prevailed at the time of default and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C....