9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Gajendra Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant M/s. Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. has filed these appeals against the impugned order and co-appellant M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. filed the appeals against the impugned orders of imposition of penalties on them. 2. As the issue involved in all the appeals is common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and differential duty is demanded as per valuation arrived at as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules and penalties on both the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant are before us. 14. Heard both sides. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation Rules and not as per Rule 10A as Valuation Rules. They have also filed regular returns with the department and it was not objected. The said defence of the appellant was objected by the AR on the premise that as per the statement of Shri H.K. Agarwal, Director Finance of the appellant has stated that they were paying duty in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. as per Rule 10A of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation is set aside and penalties on both the appellants before us are not imposable. 8. In these circumstances, we hold that the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is upheld. 9. We further find that another issue in this matter is that whether the appellants are required to pay cess on automobile or not. The CBEC Circular vide Circular No. 41/88, dated 31-8-1988, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
