TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants have now produced to substantiate their plea, are submitted before and examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) to record proper findings giving the basis for arriving at the same - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. E/2874, 2875/2012 and E/2934, 2935/2012 E/Cross/4288, 4289/2012 - Final Order No. 60195-60198 /2017 - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, Adv. for the Appellant Shri G. M. Sharma, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellants as well as the Revenue have filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No. 198-199/CE/Appeal/CHD-II/2012 dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty to 25%. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that all the services were in relation to business and the goods were exported on FOB basis. The goods were sent by ARE-1 procedure from the factory to CFS, Ludhiana and from there to the port of loading, JNPT. He argued that all the services were utilized upto the port of loading. He referred to the packing list, invoices and ARE-1 and argued that the freight was included in the assessable value and the goods were shifted on FOB basis. He relied on the judgments of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE ST, Bangalore vs. ABB Limited 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.) and other judgments listed below: (i) CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeals filed by the Revenue submits that in view of the wording of Section 11AC ibid, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty when the duly was not deposited within 30 days from the communication of the order. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. On examination of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the CBEC Circular dated 23.08.2007 and extracted the same in his order. After extracting the same, he has simply concluded that the place of removal is factory gate without giving any reason for his conclusion or analysis of the circular. He has further observed that the appellants have not brought anything on record to show that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
