9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices price. Therefore, invoice price should be treated as cum duty price for the quantification of demand of duty and interest and penalty are to be quantified accordingly. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the duty, interest and penalty accordingly. With regard to the imposition of penalty on M/s. Rohini Polymers, find that penalty under Rule 26 clearly mandates that if the goods are liable for confiscation and in the show cause notice there is no proposal for confiscation of the impugned goods in question, therefore, question of imposition of penalty on M/s. Rohini Polymers does not arise. Therefore, set aside the duty on M/s. Rohini Polymers. - Excise Appeal No. 53239 & 53991 of 2015- (SM) - Order No. FO/50004-500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ater on 15.3.2011, a show cause notice was issued for appropriation of the amount already paid and for imposition of penalty on both the appellants. Duty demand thereof was confirmed by the impugned order and same was appropriated along with interest and penalty on both the appellants was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation as investigation was conducted on 12.3.2008 and show cause notice has been issued on 15.3.2011. Therefore, show cause notice is barred by limitation as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Bridge 7 Construction Corpn. Ltd. vs. CCE [2011 (264) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y invoked in the show cause notice or not; and b) whether penalty under Rule 26 could be imposed on M/s. Rohini Polymers in the absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for confiscation or not. 7. With regard to the issue No.1, i.e. limitation, I find that in this case investigation was conducted on 12.3.08 and Shri Pawan K Agarwal, Director of M/s. Samleshwari Packaging Pvt. Ltd. has admitted the duty liability and paid the duty along with interest without any protest. In that circumstances, proceedings in the case are required to be come to an end but instead of that the Revenue issued show cause notice which was not required to do so. As activity of clandestine removal has been admitted by the appellant before Revenue d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
