9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty price would be extended even in the case of extended period of limitation. The case of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), as relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representatives in the context of the assessee cleared the goods, during the relevant period on the basis of exemption notification. Hence, the said case law would not be applicable in the present case. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Bhawani Weaving Factory (2008 (3) TMI 227 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) held that once duty is demanded the assessee, entitled to CENVAT credit benefit. It is a clear case of clandestine removal of the goods. It is noticed that the appellant No. 2 had indulged for removal of the goods without payment of duty, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 13,77,522.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. A penalty of ₹ 4,00,000.00 was imposed on the Director of the appellant company. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. Hence, both the appellants filed these appeals. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that he is not contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the appellant company on merit. He submits that the benefit of cum-duty-price should be extended for quantification of the demand of duty and also the benefit of CENVAT credit should be allowed. He relied upon the decisions, as under:- (a) Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Honble Supreme Court extended the benefit of cum-duty-price. In the case of Dugar Tetenal India Ltd. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held the cum-duty price would be extended even in the case of extended period of limitation. The case of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), as relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representatives in the context of the assessee cleared the goods, during the relevant period on the basis of exemption notification. Hence, the said case law would not be applicable in the present case. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Bhawani Weaving Factory (supra) held that once duty is demanded the assessee, entitled to CENVAT credit benefit. 6. It noticed that the Adjudicating Authority had not al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s excessive. 8. In view of the above discussions, the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the appellant No. 1 is upheld. The Adjudicating Authority is directed quantification of the demand of duty, after extending the benefit of cum-duty-price and the CENVAT credit after verification of the records. He would also extend the option to pay penalty 25% of duty in terms of Section 11 AC of the Act, 1944. The penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2 is reduced to 50,000.00. Both the appeals filed by the appellants are disposed of on the above terms. At this stage, the Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the pre-deposit amount should be kept with the Department till the order passed by the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
