TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. E/467/2011 - A/87977/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate, for appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Sanjiv Srivastava The appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 3.11.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Pune. By the said order Commissioner (Appeal) has upheld the order of adjudicating authority confirming the demand of duty along with the interest and penalty. However Commissioner (Appeal) has reduced the penalty imposed to ₹ 10,000/-. The order of adjudicating authority is reproduced below: (i) Und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period from 01.01.08 to 31.12.09 is appropriated and adjusted against the duty confirmed at (i). (iii) The interest at applicable rate is ordered to be recovered from the assessee in terms of the section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on differential duty amount of ₹ 779976/- fro the period from 1.1.08 to 31.12.08. (iv) The interest of ₹ 40,463/- paid under protest for the period 01.01.09 top 31.12.09 be appropriated against the interest liability. (v) I impose penalty of ₹ 13,18,365/- upon the assessee in terms of the Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This order is passed without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notices have been adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Pune VI division as per the order referred in para 1. 2.5 Aggrieved by the order of adjudicating authority, appellants filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), who upheld the order of adjudicating authority as indicated in para 1 supra to the extent of duties confirmed and interest. However he reduced the penalty to ₹ 10,000/-. 2.6 Against this order of Commissioner (Appeals), appellants are in appeal. 3.0 In their appeal appellants have assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeal) on following grounds: (i) Lump sum addition of the total costs without amortization is incorrect. From the same design/ art work/ photo film, the number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the case records. We find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand by adopting the values given by the Appellant. We find that it is the third round of litigation before the Tribunal. On first occasion the case was remanded back by the Tribunal to adjudicating authority following the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Mutual Industries supra. In second round the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside as he has not followed the Tribunal s direction. This is now third round of litigation. We find that the adjudicating authority by following the Tribunal s order has amortized the development/ film/ drawing charges and quantified the demand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
