TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortionate allocation of costs were covered in circular no. 170/4/96-CX dated 23rd January 1996 of Central Board of Excise Customs whereas the demand pertains to a period prior to that also. Reliance can be placed in the case of UNIFLEX CABLES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II [ 2011 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Penalty not imposable when issue involved is of interpretational nature - the case renders a finding that is equally applicable insofar as the ingredients permitting the extended period in section 11A of Customs Act, 1962 to be invoked; it is settled law that one cannot exist without the other. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 85878 OF 2013 - A/850 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndum dated 28th February 2000) for not having included the proportionate cost of patterns , supplied free of cost by their customers for manufacture of castings , in the assessable value for the period from April 1994 to October 1998, was confirmed by the original authority. Their appeal was dismissed and, upon seeking further remedy before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the original authority. In the de novo proceedings, the duty on amortized cost was re-determined at ₹ 3,98,140/- and penalties imposed. 3. It is common ground that the mandate for inclusion of amortized cost had not been complied with in computing the assessable value for discharge of duty liability. The original authority has accepted the workshee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of Service Tax was rendered in the context of Section 80 of the Act (as it stood at the relevant time). This finding will also apply to determine whether there was any intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Moreover, the revenue has accepted the deletion of penalty as we are informed that the revenue has not preferred any appeal from the order dated 17 October, 2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty. Moreover, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant point out that the services were provided by individual Truck owners who are not covered by the definition of GTA as existing during the relevant period as they are not commercial concern. This according to Mr. Joshi has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound of litigation were revised substantially during the second round indicating lack of certainty when proceedings were initiated by the central excise authorities. A higher measure of certainty cannot be expected of an assessee. 8. It is also seen from the records that guidelines on proportionate allocation of costs were covered in circular no. 170/4/96-CX dated 23rd January 1996 of Central Board of Excise Customs whereas the demand pertains to a period prior to that also. 9. Moreover, the finding in the impugned order that 13. All said and done, the department has not been able to place any clinching documentary evidence to prove the allegation that the Appellants had intention to evade payment of duty by willfully suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so settled that when divergent view being taken and the matter involved interpretation of statute, no penalty could be imposed in such cases. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the following case laws:- (i) UNIFLEX CABLES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II-2011 (271) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein it is held that- Penalty not imposable when issue involved is of interpretational nature. (ii) U.G. SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-II -2011 (266) E.L.T, 339 (Tri. - Del.) - wherein it is held that- 10. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the same do not warrant any interference . in the impugned order in that regard. Learned Advocate for the appellants however justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
