9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri S.M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 9-5-2003 upholding the imposition of penalty against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1.25 lakh and demand of interest under Section 11AB w.e.f. 28-9-96. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty demand imposed a penalty of an equal amount invoking Section 11AC. Interest under Section 11AB was also ordered. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Manager (Finance and Accounts) of the appellant-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the invocation of 11AC but reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs. 13,93,980/- to Rs. 1.25 lakh. He set aside the personal penalty impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of cost of amortized in the assessable value. In CCE, Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. P. Ltd. - 1999 (85) ECR 94, Creative Cartons v. CCE, Mumbai - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 79 and Velpack Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/6222/92-A it was held that cost of moulds and dies supplied free of cost are not includible in the assessable value. In Flex Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (91) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal had taken conflicting views on the liability, it cannot be contended that there was wilful suppression of fact on the part of the appellant in order to avoid payment of duty. Under these circumstances, we, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was not justified in this case. We. therefore, set aside the demand of penalty against the appellant under the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
