9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akesh Kumar (Oral): The appellant company are engaged in building of bus bodies. They received chassis from Tata Motors Ltd. and cleared complete buses after building complete body on the chassis. During the period of dispute i.e. 1.4.07 to 31.12.2007, they paid duty on the buses on the of cost of chassis plus the body building chargers. The Department was of the view that since they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants vide stay order No.2-3(DK)/CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 8.6.2009 were directed to deposit the duty amount for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. But on failure of the appellants to deposit the duty amount within the stipulated period, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in appeal No. 164-165(DK)CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 27.7.2009 dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside and the appeals be allowed to be heard on merits. Shri Alok Kothari, fairly concedes that on merits, this matter is covered against the appellants by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles vs.C.C.E., Indore reported in 2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri-Del.), as far as the duty demand of differential excise duty is concerned. He, however pleads that there is no justificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n them under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, that though the differential duty demand has been paid, but the interest on the differential duty demand has not been paid. Shri Kothari, Advocate, the learned Counsel for Appellants however, submits that the Appellants, undertake to to pay the interest on the differential duty demand confirmed within eight weeks. 5. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany is concerned, since we find that the learned Counsel for the appellants is justified in contending that the matter relates to interpretation of valuation Rules, it cannot be said that there was intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for imposition of penalty. Accordingly , while maintaining the duty demand and interest thereon we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
