9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appeal of the revenue. Hon'ble Supreme Court referred case back to High Court. The revenue pointed out that judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd had been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Assessee pleaded that proceedings by invoking extended period of limitation were not justified and in absence of mens rea, penalty could not be levied. High cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue as per Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, demand for interest was raised and penalty was also imposed by the original authority. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the levy of interest and penalty following judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2006-TIOL 885-CESTAT-MUM. Against the said order, appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. On further appeal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of mens rea, penalty could not be levied. 6. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. (supra), the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, on the question of limitation and quantification, we do not express any opinion at this stage, since the matter was decided by the Tribunal only on the basis of judgment of the Tribunal in M/s Rucha Engineering Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
