9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal 321-322/2014 CE dated 30.05.2014. Since both the appeals are arising out of common Order-in-Appeal, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpired that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een imposed were under bonafide impression that the packaged software is not covered under Central Excise and were unaware of duty liability on packaged software. 5. It is his submission that despite discharge of entire duty liability along with interest, penalties have been imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the main appellant and the Rule 26 of Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ftware developed by them is a packaged software and he also admitted that they have not discharged the duty liability thereon. He would submit that the main appellant indeed discharged the duty liability and the interest thereon before the issuance of showcase notice but that does not preclude the department from imposition of penalties under appropriate provisions of the law. He would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod in question was not discharged due to suppression of facts and mis-statement in the form of not informing the revenue authorities about the developmental activities undertaken by the appellant. Both the lower authorities have come to the conclusion that there was suppression of facts by the main appellant and the individual appellant being a responsible person, are liable to be penalize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
