TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... engaged in the manufacture of Hot Re-rolled products of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 10,87,567/- on 05.09.2016, on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur, vide Order-in-original No. 10 to 148/ Demand/2016 dated 22.07.2016, had dropped the penalty and interest imposed in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 24.11.2015. Further, the appellant had deposited the interest and penalty against the following Orders-in-original involved in the Order-in-original No. 10 to 148/Demand/ 2016 dated 22.07.2016:- Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Amount deposited &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.04.2000 68,440/- 3,500/- 3 190/2000 dt. 30.05.2000 27,376/- 2,000/- 4 260/2000 dt. 07.09.2000 13,688/- 1,500/- 5 326/2000 dt.16.10.2000 28,268/- 3,000/- Total 4,42,288/- 25,000/- As such, it appeared that the appellant had deposited the amount of Central Excise Duty, penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant also deposited the interest of Rs. 10,62,567/- under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur contained in his aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2012. The Assistant Commissioner, Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, it is clear that the interest of Rs. 10,62,597/- was got deposited by the appellant without any order of the adjudicating authority and without any authority of law. Hence, I am inclined to hold that the refund of Rs. 10,62,597/- is admissible to the appellant. iii) Now, coming to the issue of refund of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I find that the adjudicating authority had imposed the penalty upon the appellant under the OIOs and the same was deposited by the appellant as per the OIOs. It is not on the record that the appellant had gone in appeal against the said OIOs or the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur's letter C. No. IV(16)05/Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as per Section 11AB nor entitled to refund of penalty amount which was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner also observed that the assessee has claimed refund pursuant to Order-in-original dated 22.07.2016 (pursuant to remand) whereas Order-in-original No. 326/2000 dt. 16.10.2000 was not in issue in the remanded Order-in-original. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of Hot Re-rolled products of Iron and Steel and was operating under 'Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997' wherein pursuant to separate Order-in-original an amount of duty of Rs. 3 lakhs was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q, but the charging of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty under Rule 173Q was imposed. 7. Thus, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order have blown both hot and cold in the same breath and passed cryptic order with regard to penalty under Rule 173Q. On the one hand, he has observed that charging of penalty under Rule 173Q have been held to be ab initio void by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mills (supra), whereas on the other hand, he has erred in observing that the appellant-assessee is not entitled to refund as appellant has not filed any appeal for such penalty, though the matter was sub-judice and subsequently re-adjudicated pursuant to remand, in the Order-in-original dated 22.07.2016. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with approp....