9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar, The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Henkel India Ltd. (in short HIL) are manufacturers of Mahabringal Oil and cleared the product on payment of duty to their holding company M/s. Henkel Spic India Ltd. (in short HSIL). It appeared to the department that since the respondent was selling their goods to their holding company, the normal transaction valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings, the original adjudicating authority vide an order dated 26.03.2009, held that longer period of limitation would be invokable and demand for that period is sustainable, however, the original authority did not impose any penalties under Section 11 AC of the CEA, 1944 or under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 as proposed in the show cause notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order. He also pointed out that in the denovo proceedings by the adjudicating authority, no penalties under Section 11 AC had been imposed and it was only held that the extended period was invokable and that differential duty liability was sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The core issue that comes up for decision concerns whether the aspect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or paid put forward by reasons of fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of facts etc., with intention to evade payment of duty. 5.4 No doubt, the original authority, while justifying invokation of extended period, has observed that there is suppression on the part of the assesse. But, we are unable to fathom how in spite of such an observation, he has chosen not to impose penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
