2018 (2) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n which duty have been demanded from the appellants, duty has already been paid by the M/s ISGEC on the said amount. If the duty has been demanded from the appellant, in that circumstances, it will be the case of demand of duty twice on the same product which is not permissible in law. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. G.M. Sharma, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein differential duty has been demanded along with interest and penalty is also imposed on them. 2. The facts of the case are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tical issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.61982-61983/2017-EX(DB) dated 13.10.2017, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 5. Considering the fact that in appellant's own case for the earlier period on the identical issue came up before this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "7. In this case, the facts have not been disputed that the appellants are job worker and after manufacturing the goods and clearing on payment of duty to M/s ISGEC and M/s ISGEC is taking the credit of duty paid by the appellant and further cleared the goods on payment of duty at transaction value. The case of the Revenue is that in terms of Rule 10A(ii) of the Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tween the appellants and the principle manufacturer that the process of testing undertaken by the M/s ISGEC amounts to manufacture. Ultimately, the duty has been paid by the M/s ISGEC on transaction value of M/s ISGEC, on that circumstances, as duty has been paid on the transaction value of the said goods, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants were having any intention to pay less duty on the said goods. Therefore, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellants." 6. Considering the fact that the issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant, therefore, as discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X