9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Raghavan and Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Nagaraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) and Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent. ORDER These four applications are filed seeking rectification of mistake in common Final Order Nos.A/30643 to 30646/2016 dt. 08/08/2016 relating to appeal Nos.E/624, 625/2009, E/677, 678/2008 by which common order, all the four appeals were dismissed, upholding the confirmation of duty demand, interest and penalties. 2.1. Learned counsel Shri Raghavan submitted that the Tribunal while passing the Final order omitted to consider certain material submissions put forward by the appellant. He pointed out the following:- i. In respect of quantification of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE [2013(292) ELT 59 (Tri. Bom.)] b. Hyva India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(327) ELT 41 (Tri. Bom.)] viii. Learned counsel further submits that the above contentions and submissions had already been put forth before the Tribunal by way of written submissions dt. 01/06/2016. ix. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that the matter may be remanded to original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of issues at Sl.No.i to iii above. 2.2. On behalf of the Department, learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik and Shri Guna Ranjan submit that the Tribunal order does not call for any rectification. 2.3. Heard both sides. We find considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is a fact that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand is within normal period, there cannot be any question of imposition of penalty in view of the judgment in Audi Automobiles case. The said para 37 is reproduced below:- 37. Ld. Advocate in relation to the appeal No.179/10 (M/s. Hyva India Pvt. Ltd.) referred to a letter dated 26.04.2007, wherein the said appellant has informed the Department about the determination of value of body-built vehicles on the supplied chassis post 01.04.2007. We find from the observation of the ld. Commissioner that no finding has been recorded on the said letter in recording suppression of facts. In relation to the other appeals which are taken up together, it is not clear as to whether, in all such appeals, similar letters were addressed to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scuss the same. We therefore find that there is an error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified. The impugned Final Order is therefore recalled and modified as follows:- A) In respect of appeal No.E/625/2009 (application No.E/ROM/30368/2016) a. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules equivalent to the duty liability cannot sustain and is therefore set aside, following the decisions in identical matters by other co-ordinate Benches. b. Cum-duty benefit for the purpose of calculation of assessable value will be available to the appellant in this case. c. Only for the limited purpose of the issues raised by learned counsel at Sl.No.i to iv, the matter is remanded to the original authority for denovo con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. He submits that when the penalty under Rule 25 ibid is set aside in Tribunal s decisions cited above, there can be no equivalent penalty under Rule 26 in this case also. We agree. The penalty is accordingly set aside. 3. All the four ROM applications are disposed of in above terms.` 4. It is noticed by us that even though the appeals filed by appellants viz. M/s. M.G. Automotives (P) Ltd., M/s. Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd. and M/s. Mahindra International Ltd. were disposed by the impugned common Final Order, there is an omission to mention the name of all appellants in the cause title, though, the appeal numbers were mentioned. The same also has to be rectified, and we order that the cause title in the impugned order s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
