2004 (4) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble to be levied on duty, in cases where the duty has been deposited by the assessee before issue of show cause notice. It is contended by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee that since they have deposited the duty amount before issue of show cause notice, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2003 (156) E.L.T. 995 (Tribunal) = 2003 (55) RLT 816 (CEGAT-Chennai)] (2) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal-Bang.)] 2. The Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that when fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, etc. are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Bangalore. (II) Smt. Vijaya Prakash, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue relates to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and under Rule 173Q, apart from demand of interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. She submitted that since the disputed duty amount has already been deposited by the party even before the issue of show cause notice, imposition of penalty is not justified. In support of her contention, she referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam, reported in 2003 (54) RLT 317 (CEGAT-Ban.) (III) Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the ratio of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. D5977/2003 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7-5-2003. He, therefore, rightly submitted that third question would not arise for consideration. 5. Insofar as questions 1 and 2 are concerned, questions are framed on the assumption that the Tribunal has granted relief without any justifiable reason. We find that Tribunal has in fact given a reason i.e. the disputed duty has been paid by the party even before the issue of show cause notice and this would show that there was no question of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. In fact, the Tribunal in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s case, held that where assessee deposits the duty even prior to the issue of show cause notice, penalty should not be imposed and in....