Page 163 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DEVENDRA UDYOG v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, JODHPUR 385

that the argument of the Ld. Counsel that their goods were not prohibited from
export under Foreign Trade Policy and the Public Notice issued therein does not
come to their rescue because there is no confiscation on this count at all. The only
confiscation was on the ground that the appellant has described the goods
wrongly. We find that the second test report confirms that the goods were not
which were described in the shipping bill. For this reason, we find that confisca-
tion of the goods under Section 113 and imposition of redemption fine of Rs.
10,000/- under Section 125 in lieu of confiscation (as the goods have already been
exported after the appellant gave an undertaking) calls for no interference. Con-
sequently, we also find that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section
114 is liable to be upheld and we do so. The applicable export duty and recovery
of drawback, if any, availed also call for no interference.
7. In view of the above, we find that the appeal is liable to be rejected
and we do so. The appeal is rejected and impugned order is upheld.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 385 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
DEVENDRA UDYOG
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CGST, JODHPUR
Final Order No. A/51472/2019-SM(BR), dated 13-11-2019 in Appeal No.
E/50053/2019-SM
Interest on delayed refund - Rate of interest - Section 11BB of Central
Excise Act, 1944, to clarify the rate of interest in the range of 5% to 30%, itself
empowered the Central Government to fix any rate of interest for the time be-
ing by way of a notification - Notification No. 67/2003-C.E. (N.T.) issued under
Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 having fixed the rate of interest @ 6%
per annum for the purpose of said section, interest rate of 6% only admissible
to assessee. [para 7]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
C. Padmini Chinnadurai v. Assistant Commissioner— 2010 (257) E.L.T. 538 (Mad.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Hindustan Granites — 2015 (323) E.L.T. 708 (Kar.) — Relied on ........................ [Para 7]
Commissioner v. I.T.C. Ltd. — 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) — Distinguished ........................ [Paras 3, 6, 7]
Dinesh Tobacco Industries v. Commissioner — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 303 (Tribunal) — Referred ....... [Para 3]
Govind Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (35) S.T.R. 444 (All.) — Dissented ................... [Paras 3, 6, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Om. P. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Tamanna Alam, AR, for the Respondent.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  163