TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such payment was made, then the whole premises on which show cause notice issued pales into insignificance - the certificate and other papers filed before the tribunal may be after the appeals were heard and reserved for judgment - matter remanded - 2694 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2010 - Coram: D.K. JAIN JJ. and H.L. DATTU JJ. JUDGMENT H.L. Dattu, J. 1) In this batch of civil appeals, the appellants have challenged the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No.A/2287-2290/WZB/MUM/2005/C-III/EB dated 20.12.2005. 2) By consent of the learned counsel, we have taken Civil Appeal No.2694 of 2006 as the lead case. 3) M/s. Aurangabad Electrica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... `the Act') and why interest and penalty should not be imposed under Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Act. The show cause notice was also issued to Mr. Anil Mali, Chief Executive Officer of the appellant, M/s. Bajaj and Mr. Ranjit Gupta of M/s Bajaj were asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short `the Rules'). 6) The appellants had replied the show cause notice, inter-alia, contending that they have not undervalued their final products namely, Magneto Assembly, since the same are cleared in wholesale trade in accordance with proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. They had also contended that they had cleared the Magneto Assemblies in accordance with ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bajaj were supplying drawings/designs/specifications free of cost to appellants and upto 20% of the production cost of goods manufactured which were sold back to M/s. Bajaj, was being incurred by M/s. Bajaj. The Adjudicating Commissioner, accordingly, confirmed the differential duty demand of ₹ 84,27,889/- under Section 11A(2) of the Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Rules, and penalty of ₹ 69,72,104/- under Section 11AC of the Act. The Adjudicating Commissioner also imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- on M/s. Bajaj, as well as personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on Mr.Ranjit Gupta, Vice-President of M/s. Bajaj and ₹ 25,000/- on Mr. A.R. Mali, Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Aurangabad EL, under Rule 209A of the Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the primary consumer of their goods at under-valued landed cost by not including the element of landed cost of inputs incurred on account of Sales Tax, Octroi, Freight, Insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges. The appellants are further undervaluing the clearances effected by them to M/s. Bajaj since the appellants are already receiving the price compensation in terms of inputs at reduced landed cost and thereby they are aiding each other for mutual business interest so that the production cost by both of them kept at minimum and central excise duty is discharged at a lower value. 11) The learned senior counsel for the assessee would submit that the adjudicating commissioner and the Tribunal has non-suited the appellants m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had produced the Certificate along with the other papers filed before the Tribunal, may be after the appeals were heard and reserved for judgment. In the normal course, we would not have accepted either the submission of the learned senior counsel or we would have taken note of the Certificate. Keeping in view the well settled principles laid down by this Court that technicalities should not defeat rendering of complete justice to a litigant, we think it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal to verify and consider whether the Certificate which is already placed on record by the appellant, would assist them in support of their defence. 12) In view of the above, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
