9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], that the levy on reverse charge basis was upheld w.e.f. 18.04.2006 - The appellant have already paid the said duty alongwith interest. As such there is no justification for imposition to penalty upon them - appeal alllowed. - ST/1437/2011-ST[SM] - A/71661/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 23-11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the said show cause notice, the Commissioner observed that the duty liability would fall upon the appellant only w.e.f. 18.04.2006, when the provision of section 66A were introduced and in terms of the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India : 2009 (13) STR 235. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority appropriated the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no requirement for issuance of the notice in terms of section 73 of the Finance Act. For the above provisions reliance is placed upon Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Apollo Power Systems (P) Ltd.: 2017 (347) E.L.T. 71 (Kar.) as also of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt have already paid the said duty alongwith interest. As such I find no justification for imposition to penalty upon them. The same is accordingly set aside. At this stage learned advocate submits that inasmuch as the demand was raised for the period prior to 18.04.2006 and stands confirmed by the adjudication authority only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. They have deposited the excess duty alongwith excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
