TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A/30837/2017 has closed the case file for statistical reasons, in view of the fact that the issue arising out of the present dispute was pending before the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Bench has granted liberty to both sides for filing the application for re-opening of the matter as and when the case is disposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per the judgement in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd [2015(326)ELT 450(SC)]. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits a copy of the judgement rendered by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in 2019-TIOL-204-SC-CX-LB. The issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein, relevant for consideration of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective operation admittedly. This means the value of the goods which was only admittedly provisional at the time of clearing the goods is finally determined and it is on the said differential value that admittedly that differential duty is paid. We would think that while the principle that the value of the goods at the time of removal is to reign supreme, in a case where the price is provisional and subject to variation and when it is varied retrospectively it will be the price even at the time of removal. The fact that it is known, later cannot detract from the fact, that the later discovered price would not be value at the time of removal. Most Significantly, section 11A and section 11AB as it stood at the relevant time did not provide re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), the appellant is exposed to the interest liability. Accordingly, we are of the view that the interest demand has rightly been confirmed in the adjudication order against the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, we are of the view that the said provisions cannot be invoked against the appellant, in the absence of elements of fraud, collision, wilful misstatement, etc., with intent to evade payment of duty. In this context, we find that by analysing the provisions of Rule 25 ibid read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the exercise of the power to levy penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules is conditioned by the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Tripura Containers Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (264) E.L.T. 339 (Guj.)], wherein the following interpretation on the interplay of the Act and the Rules is set out as under : "Insofar as invocation of the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules is concerned, in the entire order of the adjudicating authority there is no finding to the effect that there is any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or that there is contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of duty on the part....