TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant had any malafide intention, therefore this is not a case for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of the assessee. - Appeal No. E/2946/06 - A/94331/16/SMB - Dated:- 8-12-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Sanjay Hasija Supt. (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the respondent had cleared their finished goods to their customer by valuing the goods on the basis of purchase order placed by them by their customers. However, consequent upon price escalation, their customers amended the purchase order and revised the price of the goods on the higher side with retrospective effect. Thus, by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the demand is for extended period, there is a suppression of fact therefore the demand was confirmed invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. In such case, the penalty under Section 11AC is inevitable. The Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dropped the penalty imposed under Section 11AC therefore the order to that extent deserves to be set aside. He further submits that, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vs. BIL Metal Industries The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1664 of 2008 in the remand direction by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal order giving relief from interest and penalty was quashed and set aside. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2105 (321) E.L.T. A203 (S.C.) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 2010 (257) E.L.T. 369 (Kar.) Upheld by 2015 (318) E.L.T. A155 (S.C.) (iv) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur 2015 (326) E.L.T. 450 (S.C.). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the present appeal, the Revenue has challenged the dropping of the penalty by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which was imposed by the original authority under Section 11AC. As per the fact of the of the case there is no dispute that the duty was payable on the escalated value of the goods cleared by the appellant. The main issue was whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944? In the remand order the following paragraph is reproduced below: 9. As the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of International Auto Ltd. (supra) where an earlier decision of SKF India Ltd. (supra) is reiterated in this very authority where also similar view was expressed. In this premise, this appeal needs to be allowed and order of the Tribunal in the present case need to be quashed and set-aside. Rule to the above extent is to be confirmed. Accordingly, this Tax Appeal stands allowed with consequential relief and stands disposed of. From the reading of the above judgment, it is very clear that the issue decided by the Hon ble High Court is whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
