9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also on cum duty value of the goods - matter on remand. Penalty u/r 26 - Held that: - both the persons being director of the appellant company, were very well aware of the goods being cleared without payment of duty. Therefore, they are liable for penalty - decided against appellant. Penalty on M/s. ACT Trading Co. - Held that: - M/s. ACT Trading Co. is manufacturing certain parts and clearing it to M/s. Agwan Coach Pvt. Ltd.. There is no demand on goods supplied by M/s. ACT Trading Co., therefore their goods which are not liable for confiscation - penalty not sustainable. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - E/2928, 3418 to 3420/06 - A/90359-90362/17/EB - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting of structure on chassis of motor vehicle which attract nil rate of duty, if duty of excise is leviable on chassis in terms of notification no. 6/06 (sr. No.239). He further submits that the first show-cause notice dated 16.08.2004 for demand of `30,04,175/- was issued for longer period i.e. 2002-03 and 2003-04 on the ground of fraud, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts with intention to evade duty. He submits that the subsequent show-cause notice dated 02.11.2005 has also invoked the extended period and the same was issued for 2000-01 to 2002-03. Therefore the show-cause notice dated 02.11.2005 is time barred. He further submitted that there is a quantification error of demand in the show-cause notice. He pointed that by sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred, we find that the case involved in both the show-cause notices was detected by the search and further investigation, there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellants. Therefore, even though show-cause notice was issued subsequently, but the five year period was available to the revenue. The show-cause notice for a period where there is a suppression of fact can be issued within five years therefore the show-cause notice was rightly issued well within five years and is not time barred. 5. As regards the calculation disputed by the appellants, we find that there is apparent mistake in repetition of demand though involved in the first show-cause notice, but the same was repeated in the second show-cause notice as sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
