COMPETENT ENGINEERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C EX , JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he petitioner has approached, this Court by filing the present petition challenging order dated 21-9-2005 (Annexure P.4) passed by Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise (for short, the Commission') whereby the Commission has refused to grant waiver of interest to the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of parts for Railways falling under Chapter Heading 94 and 86 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner is doing job work for Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as the RCF'). During the period January, 2000 to December 2001, the petitioner received blanks from RCF for job of punching/notching and bending, as per their specifications, against job charges ranging from Rs. 54/- to Rs. 61/- per piece. The duty was paid by the petitioner on the value of job work charges charged by him from the RCF. No duty was paid on the value of blanks supplied free of cost by the RCF. The petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why the amount of duty amounting to Rs. 3,95,847/- be not recovered from him on account of his not including the value of raw material in the assessable value for levy of excise duty. Levy of interest and penalty was also proposed. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, vide order dated 10-2-2004 confirmed demand of Rs. 99,622/- as duty against the petitioner in addition to imposition of interest and penalty. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was appealed against by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner approached the Commission admitting his full liability of duty, however, prayed for immunity from interest and penalty. The Commission vide its order dated 21-9-2005 granted full immunity to the petitioner in respect of penalty, however, no waiver from payment of interest was granted. It is on this account that the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) In reply filed, the respondents have controverted various pleas raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge only a part of the order. The same is merely an effort to delay the payment of interest. The order passed by the Commission is just and fair which is based on appreciation of facts of the present case where it has been found that the petitioner is not entitled to immunity from interest.