HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. is whether any penalty is imposable on them and interest is demandable from them.

(2.) SHRI B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that under the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty in respect of copper concentrate cleared by them during the period from 23 -7 -96 to, 17 -8 -96 and imposed a penalty of an equivalent amount of Rs. 65,87,143/ - and demanded interest under the provisions of Section 11AB and Section 11AA of Central Excises Act, 1944. The learned Advocate also submitted that the appellants are not challenging the demand of duty. He further submitted that the excise duty @ 10% ad valorem was made applicable to copper concentrate vide Notification 19/96 -C.E., dated 23 -7 -96; that as their unit was situated in a remote area in Madhya Pradesh, they did not come to know about the levy of duty on the copper concentrate; that they were informed by the Central Excise Officers under letter dated 20 -8 -96 that exemption to copper concentrate had been withdrawn and they were liable to pay duty on the same, that the Central Excise Inspector directed them to apply also for registration; that the officers had also visited their factory premises on 17 -8 -96 and directed them to furnish information; that immediately after they came to know about withdrawal of the exemption they started paying duty on the copper concentrate and paid the excise duty on 5 -10 -96 in respect of copper concentrate cleared during 23 -7 -96 to 17 -8 -96; that in such a case, extended period of limitation is not invocable as there is no wilful suppression on their part; that as they have paid the duty immediately after they came to know about the withdrawal of the exemption, no penalty is also imposable; that in any case, they were clearing copper concentrate to their other Units at Khatri in Rajasthan and to M/s. Indian Copper Complex in Bihar and the duty paid by them would have been availed of as Modvat credit and as such there is no revenue loss. In view of these circumstances, the learned Advocate submitted that neither any penalty is imposable nor any interest is demandable from theappellants.

(3.) SHRI D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR, submitted that it is not disputed by the appellants that they had not paid the duty during the period from 23 -7 -96 to 17 -8 -96 and they had removed the excisable goods without payment that this fact of clearing the goods was also not brought to the notice of the Department and as such the extended period of limitation is invocable and penalty and interest are imposable.