2017 (2) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is that the appellant have cleared motor vehicles to Automobile Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune for testing purpose on payment of duty under a cover of invoice under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2000. After testing, while receiving back the motor vehicle appellants have availed the cenvat credit thereafter they have carried out certain processes such as Fluid level checking, AC pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vat Credit availed by them. Therefore the differential duty demand was raised and imposed equal amount of penalty and interest 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 Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the Order-in-A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, hence part of the demand will stand time bar. He further submits that as per the Tribunal's order against the same Order-in-Appeal, in the department's appeal, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that issue involved is of interpretation of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore it is not a case of mala fide intention to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed that 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. As regard penalty, since the Tribunal in the order dt. 16.3.2007 upheld the reduced penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and no further appeals filed against that, the same cann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X