9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, the appellant had a bonafide belief that they would be eligible for SSI exemption, even if, they cleared the goods to M/s. Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. after affixing HSWIL brand name ‘Hindware’ on the goods. Prima-facie the longer limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) would not be applicable. According to the appellant’s Counsel, the duty demand for the normal limitation period is less than ₹ 5.00 Lakhs, and this fact is not disputed by the ld. DR. In view of this, we hold that the amount of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs already paid by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal, and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty has to be waived. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the EWC seat covers, bath tubs and mirrors cleared to HSWIL by affixing their brand-name Hindware would not be eligible for SSI exemption. It is on this basis that show cause notice dated 05.07.2002 was issued to M/s. JSW for demand of duty of ₹ 28,09,185/- for the period from 1997-98 to 2001-02 by invoking extended period under proviso to section 11A(1). The SCN also demanded interest on this duty and proposed imposition of penalty on JSW under section 11AC and also penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules on Shri R.S. Somani, Accountant of HSWIL. The Additional Commissioner vide order in original No.28/9/2012 confirmed the above mentioned duty demand against JSW alongwith interest on it under section 11AB and imposed pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Continental Foundation Joint venture vs. CCE reported in 2007 (216) ELT-177(SC) that duty demand during normal limitation period is less than 5.00 Lakhs while the appellant have already paid ₹ 5.00 Lakhs which stands appropriated by the Additional Commissioners order and hence, the amount already paid by the appellant is sufficient for the hearing of the appeal and, hence the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty by JSW be waived for hearing of their appeals, that as regards the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by Shri R.S.Somani, there is absolutely no justification for imposition of penalty on him under Rule 26 and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name Hindware on the goods. In view of this, prima-facie the longer limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) would not be applicable. According to the appellant s Counsel, the duty demand for the normal limitation period is less than ₹ 5.00 Lakhs, and this fact is not disputed by the ld. DR. In view of this, we hold that the amount of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs already paid by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal, and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty has to be waived. As regards the stay application of Shri R.S. Somani is concerned, he is an Accountant of HSWIL, the customer of the appellant company, and the impugned order does not discuss as to how the elem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
