M/S. Anna Petrochem Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 336 (HKS) CE/JPR-II/2006 dated 05.06.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Jaipur ].

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Anna Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Jaipur

Appearance:

Ms Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri M S Negi, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing /decision: 19.08.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52741 /2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellants is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day and imposition of penalty of Rs.2000/- on them by way of impugned order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant defaulted in payment of duty for the period March, 2005 which they paid later on for the month on 23.7.2005 with interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant to appropriate the duty paid by them along with interest and for imposition of penalty. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that interest charged from them is too high and penalty is not leviable on them Matter was adjudicated. The amount paid, that is duty and interest was appropriated and penalty of Rs.2000/- was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before us.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that imposition of interest of Rs.1000/- per day has been struck down by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Lucid Colloids Ltd. vs Union of India [2006 (200) ELT 377 (Raj)] wherein Rajasthan High Court has held that interest of 2% per month is sufficient. Therefore, impugned order be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order.

5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.

6. As held by Honble Rajashtna High Court in the case of Lucid Colloids Ltd. (supra) holding interest at the rate of 2% per month is enough for such a default, we feel that interest at the rate of 2 % per month during the period of default is sufficient. We further find that penalty imposed on the appellant during the intervening period as per Rule 2 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was Rs.2000/- and same is sufficient. Therefore, we confirm the penalty imposed on the appellant.

7. In these terms, appeal is disposed. of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal) Member(Judicial)

( B Ravichandran )

Member(Technical)

ss

2