9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty imposable u/s 11-AC and Rule 173-Q, alongwith interest u/s 11-AB. By his order dated 29.5.2000, Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nasik, confirmed the amount, but imposed the penalty of Rs.10,12,027/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Mumbai. Learned Commissioner allowed the appeal on 26.12.2000, set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Nasik. The department approached CESTAT by further appeal and learned Members of the Tribunal were pleased to dismiss the appeal of the department and, thus, confirmed the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The respondent is engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts and access ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... branded goods since those goods were not traded by the assessee, but were used in the manufacturing stream in the manufacture of final products. It was also observed that the customers had not given instructions to put the marks or stickers on the M.V. parts, but those were put by the assessee - manufacturer in order to distinguish those as the manufacture for complying with the orders of three customers viz. Bajaj Auto, Kinetic Engineering and Rajkumar Engineering respectively. The Additional Commissioner further observed that the assessee has suppressed the material facts from the department that the goods are not branded goods. By such suppression, the assessee was able to remain in the SSI slab and enjoy the benefits of the exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een used in the company of strong words, such as fraud, collusion or wilful default. It was further held that where facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression of fact. So far as the case before him, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that appellants were manufacturers of automobile parts both branded, which was not owned by them and their own goods for supplies to local market was information known by the department through statutory documentations regularly filed by the appellant. The classification / declarations filed by the appellant from time to time were approved by the department without any remarks in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the assessee, it was held that the department was not at liberty to apply the extended period of limitation nor assessee could be charged of being guilty of suppression of fact or supply of false information. For the reasons discussed in paras 7 & 8, the learned Commissioner also arrived at a conclusion that the products are branded goods. Naturally, the entire order including the demand for duty, penalty and interest was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The Tribunal has concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) with very brief reasons since the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the show cause notice and the order flowing therefrom on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits, because the department had not question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
