TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri Muthu Venkataraman, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) ORDER PER R. PERIASAMI Both appeal are arising out of the common order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry. 2. The brier facts relates to demand of differential duty of ₹ 1.50 Crores for the period from May,2003 to March, 2006, on account of non-inclusion of warranty charges in the assessable value of goods (automatic teller machines) supplied by the appellants to the State Bank of India. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued Show cause notice No. 30/2006 dated 4/10/2006 demanding duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed for 11 AC penalty. Whereas, the second SCN invoked the extended period for the demand of duty on the warranty charges of ₹ 69.00 Lakhs for the period from May, 2003 to October, 2004 and also proposed 11 AC penalty and personal penalty on co-noticees. He submits that if the Commissioner confirms the demand in one SCN, second SCN becomes infructuous as the second SCN cannot be issued for the same issue again by invoking the extended period by two different authorities. He also submits that the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand as per the first SCN and imposed personal penalty as per the second SCN. He also submits that the adjudicating authority cannot confirm demand on both SCNs and first he should decide which S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellants have suppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of duty and proposed equivalent penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. We find that another SCN dated December, 2006 issued to the appellant by the ADGCI on the same issue demanding duty of ₹ 69,27,724/- for the period May, 2003 to March 2006 and invoked extended period and also proposed for 11 AC penalty on the appellant and proposed personal penalty on other co-noticees. 6. On perusal of the findings of the adjudicating authority at page 30 31, we find that the adjudicating authority in his findings confirmed the duty demand in the above two SCNs and the first SCN was issued by the Commissioner himself on 4.10.06 and also invoked extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
