9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue involved is only a calculation on value therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had any malafide intention with intent to evade payment of duty - the demand for the extended period, penalty and interest corresponding to the said demand is set aside - adjudicating authority is free to recalculate the duty if any arise for the normal period and recover for forthwith - appeal allowed by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 6,943/-. This confirmation is against the proposed demand in the show cause notice for an amount of ₹ 2,44,709/- and education cess of ₹ 585/- and interest thereon. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original dt. 21.3.2006, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the balance amount of ₹ 1,90,781/- and interest of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice for the period July 2000 to January 2005 was issued on 21.3.2006. He also submits that interest is also not chargeable. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the differential duty demand was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever even in such a situation malafide intention cannot be attributed in the absence of positive evidences which are lacking in the present case. Therefore invoking Section 11AC is not correct. However Rule 25 is invokable and a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- will meet the ends of justice. From the above finding it can be seen that the Ld. Commissioner did not invoke Section 11AC for the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
