TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valent to cenvat credit availed at the time of re-entry of the motor vehicle in their factory. However the duty paid by the appellant is short, accordingly the differential duty demand confirmed and upheld by the lower authority is sustainable. Reduced penalty was upheld on the ground that there is no mala fide intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. Extended period of limitation - the appellant have been filing the periodical returns which indicates the payment of duty, for this reason also there is no suppression of fact. In this fact the demand prior to 26.7.2003 will not sustain being time bar. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/1344/06 - A/85129/17/SMB - Dated:- 11-11-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest under Section 11A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the original order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the demand and interest, however the penalty was reduced from the equal amount of duty to ₹ 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue filed an appeal No. E/829/2006 for enhancement of the penalty of Section 11AC. In the departments appeal the Tribunal passed order No. A/487/C-IV/SMB/2007 dt. 16.3.2007 by which the reduced penalty was maintained. As regard the confirmation of demand and interest and reduced penalty of ₹ 25,000/-, the appellant filed present appeal. 2. Shri Sachin Chitnis, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that any process carried out as stipulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture was carried out, therefore in terms of Rule 16(2) of Central Excise Rules 2002 the appellant is required to pay the duty on reissue of the motor vehicle equivalent to cenvat credit availed at the time of re-entry of the motor vehicle in their factory. However the duty paid by the appellant is short, accordingly the differential duty demand confirmed and upheld by the lower authority is sustainable. I find that the demand was raised for the period from 3.3.2003 to 14.10.2003 by the show cause notice dt. 27.7.2004, therefore demand from 3.3.2003 to 26.7.2003 is for extended period. The Tribunal in their order dt. 16.3.2007 in the department s appeal observed as under: It is seen that the duty was confirmed on the basis of interpret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
