TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, there no penalty would be imposable on the appellant for non-payment of duty of dharmada charges - Tribunal's order uphelds only part of the Commissioner (appeals)'s order confirming the duty demand on dharmada charges and there is no confirmation of the part of the Commissioner (appeals)'s order imposing penalty on the appellant. However, for removal of any doubts, it is clarified that by the final order dated 5/2/2014 [2014 (4) TMI 606 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] only the part Commissioner (appeals) order confirming duty demand on dharmada charges has been upheld and the part of the order confirming duty demand on freight and transit insurance and imposing penalty on the appellant is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/RO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng review appeal before the Commissioner (appeals). 2.3 The Commissioner (appeals) allowed the department's appeals and reversed the Assistant Commissioner's order holding that both the freight and transit insurance charges as well as dharmada charges would be includible in the assessable value and while confirming the duty demand of ₹ 2,70,097/- against the appellant, also imposed penalty of ₹ 88, 990/- on them under section 11AC and penalty of ₹ 75,000/- on them under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rule. 2.4 On the appeal being filed to the Tribunal against this order of the Commissioner (appeals), the Tribunal vide final order no. 50664/2014 dated 5/2/2014, while upholding the Commissioner (appeals)' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner's order and in the Revenue's appeal there was no prayer for imposition of penalty and moreover, this is not the case of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts and hence, imposition of penalty under section 11 AC was not called for. She, therefore, pleaded that there is a mistake apparent from the records in the final order dated 5/2/2014, as the final order upholds the entire order of the commissioner (appeals) in respect of the dharmada charges. 5. Shri M.S. Negi, Id. DR. opposed the ROM application and pleaded that para 8 of the impugned order only upholds the order of the Commissioner (appeals) upholding the duty demand of dharmada charges and part of order upholding duty demand of transit insurance has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty would be imposable on the appellant for non-payment of duty of dharmada charges. 8. However, while in para 7 of the final order dated 5/2/2014 it has been held that dharmada charges are includible in the assessable value and as such there is no infirmity in the order of the commissioner (appeals) on this point in para 8 of the order, the operative portion of the order, while the Commissioner (appeals)'s order holding confirming duty dharmada charges has been upheld, the part of the order confirming duty demand of transit insurance and freight has been set aside . Thus, the Tribunal's order uphelds only part of the Commissioner (appeals)'s order confirming the duty demand on dharmada charges and there is no confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
