9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Rules 4 and 6. The only question that needs to be decided is whether there was justification for invocation of Rule 25. The Tribunal came to hold that when there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25. On a reading of Rules 4, 6 and 25, it is clear that once it is found that there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect of the matter has to be sustained. - no reason to differ with the findings as the said decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. This Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the grounds of appeal would also reveal that there is no serious erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st respondent/assessee. There were also agreements like Plant Technology Transfer Agreement, Process Technology Transfer Agreement and Service Agreement entered into between the parties. Based on these agreements, 86% of the production of ECH by the 1st respondent/assessee was supplied to PAPL at a price agreed to between the parties and the remaining 14% was supplied to other buyers in India at a price higher than the price charged to PAPL. Till August, 2001, the assessee was paying duty on ECH cleared to PAPL by treating the transaction value of the goods as its assessable value under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act and this was not objected to by the Department. However, the valuation of the goods cleared to PAPL from Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to 66/2005 dated 30.11.2005, whereby the demand of duty against the 1st respondent/assessee under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was confirmed and the Commissioner also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/= under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and interest on duty was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Act. 6. Aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a careful perusal of the factual matrix of the case and relying upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's case, came to the conclusion that demand for duty on the basis of valuation done under Section 4 (1) (b) is correct and the valuation based on Rule 11 is most ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot resist demand of interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly. Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal in setting aside the penalty imposed on the 1st respondent/assessee, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal on the above question of law. 8. When the case was taken up, there is no representation either on behalf of the appellant or the respondent. However, after perusal of the entire records available in the typed set of papers, this Court is inclined to pass the order on the merits of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
