9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri V. Kansara, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides as we find that a very short issue is involved. 2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of First Schedule to CETA, 1985. They had sold their final products to M/s. Transpeck Silox Indus. Ltd., against Advance Release Order (ARO) on the invalidation of Advance Licence issued to the said buyer. Such ARO enables the Appellants to import raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractories was holding the field. As such, the appellants cannot be attributed with any suppression on their part so as to invoke longer period of limitation. While dealing with the above submission of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under : "6.1It is observed that the said judgment in the case of IFGL was delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18-5-05. Obviously, during the period involved in the current case, decision of the lower appellate authority, namely the Tribunal was ruling the field. The Tribunal had held that "the benefit derived by the appellant under DEEC scheme cannot be considered to be an additional consideration towards the value flowing from the buyer." Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant's a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, I allow the appeals filed by the Appellants in so far as the liabilities to penalty are concerned and I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant unit and its Vice-President. In view of voluntary compliance of duty liability on the part of Appellants, the lower authority's order for recovering interest on the duty amount is upheld for the reasons given hereinabove." 4. As is seen from the above, the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is contradictory. In Para 6.1 of his order, he has held that the demand in the present case is barred by time. However, surprisingly, in Para 10, he upheld the demand and extended the benefit in respect of penalty only. We note that there is no appeal by the Revenue against the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
