New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 379 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (8) TMI 379 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Existence of two SCNs - Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand of differential duty - non-inclusion of warranty charges in the assessable value of goods - Held that:- it is pertinent to see that the Two SCNs cannot be issued on the same issue and by invoking the extended period in both SCNs and second SCN becomes infructuous. There is no provision to confirm the demand in both SCNs. He cannot rely on both the SCNs one for confirming the dem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 of ₹ 1,57,72,214/- Crores and vide corrigendum dated 13.06.2007 the demand was increased to ₹ 1,58,92, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. The adjudicating authority in his impugned order confirmed the demand on both the show cause notices and imposed equivalent penalty on the appellants and imposed penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on Shri Deepak Chandani, Managing Director, ₹ 50,000/- on Shri S. Ravishankar, Director (Operations), and ₹ 25,000/- on Shri Sethuramanujam Nandakumar, Finance Manager under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant M/s. NCR Corporation and Shri Deepak Chandani are in appeal befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anty 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vestigation proceedings on all India basis whereas the Commissioner has adjudicated the SCN dated 04.10.2006 independently. The DGCI is not aware that the first SCN was already issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry. He submits that there is no infirmity in the order combining both the SCNs. The adjudicating authority in his order has covered the total demand under both the SCNs. The adjudicating authority has discussed and relied case laws. 5. After hearing both the sides, on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r corrigendum dated 13.06.2007 was issued and the demand amount was increased to ₹ 1,58,99,446/-. It was alleged in the SCN that 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 pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version