TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to forgo the amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- already deposited with the revenue. Thus, the duty demand confirmed at ₹ 17,96,685/- as per the original order of the Tribunal stands discharged on account of payment of the said amount with interest. Hence, the first question does not survive. Suppression of facts claiming depreciation on capital goods - Held that:- realising the mistake, the assesee took steps to withdraw the claim of depreciation and since that did not materialise, the assessee offered to pay the duty with interest. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal that Section 11AC is not attracted, cannot be faulted - against revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 147 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2012 - J P Devadhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT. By order dated 5th September, 2006, the CESTAT confirmed the duty demand but reduced the penalty imposed under section 11AC of Central Excise Act to Rs.4,50,000/-. Challenging the aforesaid order, the Revenue filed an appeal in this Court and this Court by an order dated 3rd July, 2008 restored the matter to the file of CESTAT in so far as it related to reducing the penalty levied under section 11AC of the Act to Rs.4,50,000/-. Subsequently on a praecipe filed by the assessee, the order dated 3rd July, 2008 was modified on 23rd September, 2008 wherein it was clarified that the order dated 5th September, 2006 has been set aside and that contentions of both the sides are kep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed under Section 11AC, the Tribunal by its order dated 4/3/2010 reconsidered the issue relating to the duty and confirmed the duty demand at Rs.16,04,322/- instead of the duty demand already confirmed at Rs.17,96,685/-. Challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 4/3/2010 the revenue has filed the present appeal. 6. The grievance of the Revenue is that when the issue in the earlier proceedings related to the reduction of penalty and this Court by its order dated 3rd July, 2008 has restored the matter relating to the penalty, the Tribunal could not have, on remand, reconsidered the issue relating the duty confirmed by order of the Tribunal dated 5th September, 2006. 7. To put an end to the controversy, the assessee had in fact paid th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
