COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL Vs. ANDHRA SUGARS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIA No. 68/2003(G)CE dated 13.11.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals), after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has set aside the penalties imposed on the assessee under Section 11AC and interest demanded under Section 11AB of CE Act. The reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the Government had purchased sugar on loan basis out of free sale quota, as per release orders of Director of Sugar, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Government had paid the differential price of Rs. 74,05,307.28 ps. The assessees had paid the differential duty of Rs. 11,83,644/ - under separate TR6 Challan No. 048 dated 06.01.2000 voluntarily, even without receipt of differential duty amount from the Central Government. Proceedings were initiated by the Revenue on the ground that they are required to pay penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that there is no suppression of facts, fraud, collusion or any willful mis -statement. Therefore, in a circumstance in which the sugar was taken on loan basis and later the amounts were reimbursed and appellants also voluntarily paid the duty, there was no question of imposing penalty and interest.

(2.) THE learned Counsel brings to our notice that this very issue has been decided by this Bench in the case of CC&CE (Appeals), Guntur v. Kowur Co -operative Sugar Factory Ltd. 2006 (73) RLT 365 (CESTAT -Ban.). The very ground had been raised by the Revenue against a similar order wherein the penalty and interest had been set aside. This bench, after due consideration, noticed that there was no basis for levy of mandatory penalty or interest and followed the earlier judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Deccan Cements Ltd. 2002 (52) RLT 582 (CEGAT -Ban.). He submits that as the issue is covered, the appeal may be dismissed. He also relies on a similar order passed by the Delhi Bench in the case of Jindal Co -operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 2004 (178) ELT 841 (CESTAT -Del.). He also relies on the following four citations: (i) Maduranthagam Co -op. Sugar Mills, Padalam v. CCE, Madras (ii) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner (Tribunal) affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (163) ELT A 53 (SC). (iii) CCE, Kanpur v. Kothari Products Ltd. 2005 (191) ELT 363 (Tri. -Del.) (iv) Sri Selvakumar Textiles v. CCE, Coimbatore 2005 (188) ELT 334 (Tri. -Chennai)

(3.) HEARD the learned JCDR who reiterated the departmental view.