9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vide order dated 30.10.2009 set aside similar penalties and we have no reason to hold differently. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse. - E/50072/2014-EX[DB], E/50227-50229/2014-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 54215-54218/2014 - Dated:- 21-10-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh Stay applications alongwith appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Appeal No. 141-143/CE/DLH/2014 dated 19.09.2013 which up held the Orders-in-Original No. Division-II/ADJ/04-07 dated 2009, to the extent they confirmed the duty amount of ₹ 14,81,071/- alongwith interest but set aside the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not given the benefit of turnover discount and cash discount which is admissible to them because these discounts are part of the discount policy of M/s. DD Sales Corporation and is known to the buyers. The appellants have stated that the said discounts have not been allowed on the ground that they are not shown in the invoices of M/s. DD Sales corporation. The appellants have argued that such discounts cannot be shown in the invoices because they are not known at the time of selling of the goods; they are known only later and that the observation of Commissioner (Appeals) and the original adjudicating authority that they had not produced any evidence to establish that the said discounts were passed on to the ultimate buyers is not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and Mr. Rajiv Gambjir willfully concerned themselves in the acts of commission/omission of the assessee. 5. We find that the issue is purely of valuation. It is not that the assessee cleared goods clandestinely. The assessee have contended that they had a bonafide belief that they and M/s. DD Sales Corporation were not related. There is nothing in the Show Cause Notice which brings out wilfull misstatement/suppression. Instead of indulging in as idle parade of familiar authority in this regard, suffice to say that CESTAT itself in the inter partes proceedings for a different period on identical issue vide order dated 30.10.2009(supra) set aside similar penalties and we have no reason to hold differently. 6. In view of the foregoing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
