9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . for supply to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (HMIL). Appellant cleared automobile parts to their depots at Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkatta which were registered as manufactured locations adopting value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Department took the view that in respect of the clearances of the appellant, the valuation should have been done only under Section 4 ibid. Hence show cause notices were issued to them for the period September 2012 to March 2013 and April 2013 to September 2013 inter alia demanding a total differential duty of Rs. 27,04,45,505/- with interest thereon and also proposing imposition of penalty. Adjudicating authority vide impugned order No. LTUC / 341 & 342/2014-C dt. 03.11.2014 confirmed these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmation of interest does not arise. 3. On the other hand, ld. A.R Shri R. Subramaniyan supports the impugned order with respect to confirmation of demand of differential duty and interest. He submits that interest liability will be very much applicable since the differential duty in question was paid up by the assessee only after issue of SCN. In respect of department's appeal he submits that adjudicating authority has dropped penalty only on the aspect of revenue-neutrality which is not a correct interpretation since there are number of case laws which upheld penalties even in such cases. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. In the final order relied upon by Ld. Advocate for the assessee for an earlier period, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs CCE A.P. - 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC), we hold that invocation of extended period cannot be made in periodical show cause notices. Once the ingredients which allow for invocation of extended period are not present, there can be also no question of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. We also note that these are only protective show cause notices issued on periodical basis. When the dispute per se is already mired in litigation there can be no imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the CER either. Accordingly, for these reasons, Appeals Nos. E/40211/2015 & E/40212/2015 filed by department are rejected. 6. In the result, both assessee's appeals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
