9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved is that whether in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) the assessee is required to deduct 8% from the sale price of the exempted goods for payment of 8% or otherwise. 2. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on identical issue the Tribunal in their own case reported in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2007 (211) ELT 481 decided the matter against them. However, against the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. Since no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, there was no malafide. The issue is limited to the method of calculation of payment of 8%. The appellant undisputedly paid the 8% but only after deduction of 8% considering the same as tax. Therefore the issue involved is of interpretation of valuation for the purpose of Rule 6(3)(b). The issue was also referred to the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the sale price of the exempted goods. In view of this Larger Bench decision, the issue is no longer res integra. 6. As regarding the submission of the ld. Counsel for keeping the matter in abeyance, in the light of their appeal being pending in the Hon'ble High Court, we find that firstly, there is no stay of the Tribunal's order. Moreover, the issue stands settled by the Larger Bench. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. (supra). It is a settled legal position that when there are conflicting views on the issue and the same is referred to the Larger Bench, it cannot be said that there is a malafide on the part of the appellant. 7. Having considered the fact and the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that appellant was not liable to penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
