TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DB - - - Dated:- 15-6-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya Technical Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the appellant Shri. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya These two appeals (Nos. E/474/2007 and E/472/2007) have been filed by M/s Rajkamal Plasmoulds (P) Ltd. and Mr. Saleem Pasha, Managing Director of M/s Rajkamal Plasmoulds (P) Ltd. respectively against the common Order-in-Original No. 19/2007 dated 27.3.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, Bangalore. In the subject matter, the CESTAT earlier had passed Final Order Nos. 142 143/2006 dated 1.2.2006 wherein it was held as follows : (a) The demand of differential duty on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y learned Advocate, Shri N. Anand and their pleadings inter-alia are as follows : The appellants submit that they are in appeal against the impugned order against the computation of the duty demand made in the impugned order as there is mistake in the same and they are also challenging the denial of Modvat credit on capital goods which should have been deducted while computing duty liability. Further, the Respondent has wrongly considered the value of clearance in Para 22 of the impugned order. Due to above the demands confirmed in the impugned order is high-pitched and is contrary to the directions of this Honorable Tribunal vide order dated 1.2.06 as also evidence on record. Consequently, the imposition of penalties are also high-pitch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of ₹ 1,50,000/- vide three TR6 challans on 20.5.06; 8.7.06 19.6.06. While the Respondent has appropriated only ₹ 9,00,000/- and did not bother to appropriate ₹ 15,00,000/- paid pursuant to stay order of the Tribunal and ₹ 1,50,000/-. Further, as a consequence of revised duty liability, the penalties imposed against the Appellants are required to be reduced as directed by the Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 1.2.06 itself. 5. Revenue has been represented by learned A.R., Shri Pakshi Rajan, who has reiterated the findings given in the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. We have carefully considered the full facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides. 7. The grievances of the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat consequent to the revision of duty liability, penalty imposed on them also has to be revised as directed by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 1.2.2006. 8.1. The appellants on their own have given a Table of re-computed duty liability, if their submissions are accepted. The said Table on re-computed duty liability is given below : Table : Re-computation of duty liability made by the appellants : As per para-22 of the impugned order of the Respondent As per Appellant s submissions in this appeal based on SCN and Tribunal s order dated 1.2.06 Value of clearances for the period 1.6.2001 to 30.1.2002 2,93,10,440/- 2,07,03,409/-@ Less: SSI exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,51,428/- (2,00,229) @ As per Para 7 of the SCN, this Hon ble Tribunal (in order dated 1.2.2006) upheld under-valuation only for the period from 1.2.2002 to 31.3.2003 and not for the previous period i.e. 1.6.2001 to 30.1.2002. 9. On careful consideration of all the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides, we hereby hold as below : (A). Both the appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-1 for re-computation of the liability of payment of Central Excise duty, interest and imposition of penalties, if any. When the Commissioner makes the adjudication afresh on the liability of duty, interest and penalty, he / she shall abide by the following : (i) For dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
