TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara II, vs. Indeos Abs Ltd. reported in [2010 (3) TMI 656 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the issue raised was answered in favour of the assessee. It is not in dispute that, in an identical matter where a similar issue was raised, the Supreme Court, in the case of Nirlon Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in [2015 (5) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT], affirmed the view taken by the concerned High Court. - Decided against Revenue. - C. M. A. No. 976 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : No appearance For the Respondent : Mr. V. Balasubramanian JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit marging was included for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value and since it was projected as if the unit was incurring losses consistently, proceedings in the form of show cause notice were initiated against the assessee demanding differential duty. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority, vide the order in original, confirmed the duty amount of ₹ 3,31,115/- payable for the period 1996-97 under the erstwhile Rule 9(2) of CER 1944 read with sub section (1) of CEA 1944, imposed equal penalty under Section11 AC of CEA 1944 and appropriate interest under Section 11 AB of CEA, 1944 was also demanded. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. 8. Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondent to invoke the proviso to Section 11 A (1) of the Act and apply the extended period of limitation. In view thereof, we confirm the demand insofar as it pertains to show cause notice dated 25.2.2000. However, as far as show cause notice dated 03.03.2001 is concerned, the demand from February, 1996 till February 2000 would be beyond limitation and that part of the demand is hereby set aside. Once we have found that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, we set aside the penalty as well. 5. In view of the said stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
