9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is that as the appellant company had not collected any duty amount from UPC, the demand of differential duty may also be re-determined by extending “cum duty benefit” - Held that:- This is a case where the entire transactions were done clandestinely, right from the getting raw materials, to the production and the clearances all of which were sought to be kept away from the eye of the department - there cannot be any mitigation of the tax liability by grant of cum duty benefit. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/394/2011, E/393/2011 - Final Order No. 41871-41872 / 2018 - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of ₹ 10,000/- each on Shri P.G. Radhakrishna Raja and one Shri T. Balakumar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeals filed by the appellant company and Shri P.G. Radhakrishna Raja to Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dt. 29.04.2011 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence these appeals. 2.1 Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri M.Kannan submits that the second appellant Shri P.G. Radhakrishna Raja (Appeal No.E/393/2011) had passed away on 12.04.2013 and submitted Death Certificate dt. 16.04.2013 issued by Rajapalayam Municipality, Tamil Nadu. He submits that the appeal of late Shri P.G.Radhakrishna Raja would be abated in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the very same invoices had been produced before the lower appellate authority who, in Para 13 of the impugned order has noted that they were invoices beyond the period of dispute. The plea of the appellant on this score is therefore found to be specious, and is therefore rejected. 5.2 On the plea for cum-duty benefit, we find that this is a case where the entire transactions were done clandestinely, right from the getting raw materials, to the production and the clearances all of which were sought to be kept away from the eye of the department. In such a scenario, we are of the firm opinion that there cannot be any mitigation of the tax liability by grant of cum duty benefit. On this score also, appellants plea fails. 5.3 In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
