9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son that we do not find any ingredients of Section 11AC in the present case. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the imposition of penalties are not warranted. But, the demand of interest as applicable for the period Oct’98 to Jan’2000 is justified. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No.E/1425/04 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri P. Arul Superintendent, (AR) For the Respondent: Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2004 (M-IV) dt. 30.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, whereby penalty and interest were set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss it was detected by the officers they would have continued to evade payment of duty. In this respect, the ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to the statement of the authorized person of the respondent as recorded in the show cause notice. 4. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of A.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi - 2001 (129) ELT 218 (Tri. Del.). He also submits that it is a settled position of law that where there is fraud, collusion, suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, penalty is imposable under Section 11AC of the Act. 5. The ld. advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that they have debited a sum of Rs.3,53,537/- in their RG-23A Part II before the visit of the officers f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seats and other auto interiors and cleared them to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as M/s. HMIL); that the Jigs, Fixtures, Moulds Dies were supplied by M/s. HMIL for the manufacture of said automobile components; that in the case of Santro model cars, the Jigs, Fixtures, Moulds and Dies were imported and received directly at their factory premises; that the entire property belonged to M/s. HMIL; that the entire cost of the said items was borne by M/s. HMIL; that M/s. HMIL had agreed to reimburse the entire cost incurred by them; that in the case of Accent model cars, the jigs, fixture, moulds and dies were imported by M/s/HMIL; that the jigs and fixtures were delivered under the 57S (1) (ii) challan after debiting duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills - 2009 (2380 ELT 3 (SC), we are unable to accept the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the penalty. 8. However, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as setting aside of the penalty for the reason that we do not find any ingredients of Section 11AC in the present case. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the imposition of penalties are not warranted. But, the demand of interest as applicable for the period Oct 98 to Jan 2000 is justified. 9. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
