2005 (8) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....objections, but has only prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In the last para of the cross-objections, it has been stated that "...........the appeal filed by the Revenue may be disposed off on merits because heavy expenditure will be involved in case some advocate or the representative of the unit attends the hearing at New Delhi.......... ." The matter is, therefore, heard on merits with the assistance of the learned Authorised Representative of the department. 3.The respondent was manufacturing sugar and molasses falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 17.01 and 17.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. A show cause notice came to be issued on the respondent on 29-8-2003 on the following two counts : (a)     &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner (Appeals) had committed an error in reducing the penalty to Rs. 1000/- by overlooking that penalty of Rs. 5000/- was the minimum prescribed under Rule 173Q of the said rules. It was also submitted that interest ought to have been charged under Section 11AB as was done in the order-in-original. It was contended that out of the total amount of Rs. 74,474.40 paise reversed later, an amount of Rs. 43,631.14 was already utilised by the respondent towards payment of duty on final products, before reversal. The respondent, therefore, acted in conscious disregard to the provisions of law, and, therefore, there was no warrant for showing any leniency by reducing the penalty amount. 6.There is no dispute over the fact that excise duty was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....breach for the period from 1-1-1998 to 25-12-1998 against the respondents could not have been claimed in the present case. Under the provisions of Section 11AB interest would be payable inter alia where there is contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. There was no allegation in the show cause notice that the breach of rule was committed with any intention to evade payment of duty. The respondent had pleaded extenuating circumstances which were found by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be genuine in respect of the contravention of Rule 57R(8). In fact, in respect of recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner, Rule 57U, as it operated at th....