Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... suppressed the facts with intent to evade duty. Penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/20028/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20255/2019 - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Appellant Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate, S. Raghu, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Order-in-Original to the extent of imposition of penalty of ₹ 45,38,361/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .7.2013 was issued to the assessee demanding the differential duty along with interest and proposing to appropriate the amount paid towards demand and interest along with the proposal to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. After following the due process, the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 4.12.2013 confirmed the demand of differential duty along with interest and also appropriated the amount paid towards demand and interest. Further, penalty equivalent to differential duty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who vide t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sis supplied free of cost in the assessable value of body built vehicles was always in dispute and is still pending before the apex court and hence, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Sita Singh Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (362) ELT 778 (Tri.-Chennai) Sita Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (361) ELT 888 (Tri.-Chennai) Audi Automobiles vs. CCE, Indore: 2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri.-Del.) Audi Automobiles vs. CCE, Indore: 2017 (346) ELT 498 (Tri.-Del.) HMM Coaches Ltd. vs. CCE, Panchkula: 2016 (339) ELT 152 (Tri.-Del.) Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI: 2015 (327) ELT 41 (Bom.) 6. After considering the submis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates