9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. - E/800/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21168/2018 - Dated:- 17-8-2018 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE SHRI P.ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. M.Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K.Murali, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s. Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. (the appellants) are a registered assessee and have various divisions i.e. inter-units or sister units. The appellants have a fabric division at Doddaballapur, where fabrics manufactured/processed; the processed fabrics are cleared on payment of duty to the sister units who manufacture readymade garments which are either exported or cleared on payment of duty. The appellants were required to pay duty 110% of the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 (Tri. Che.) affirmed by the Supreme Court vide 2018 (360) ELT A301 (SC). (ii) SMT Machine (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2016 (340) ELT 83 (P H). (iii) CCE Vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC). (iv) CCE Vs. Indeos ABS Ltd., 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.). (v) CCE Vs. Tarapur Grease India Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (334) ELT 416 (Bom.). (vi) CCE Vs. Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (323) ELT (Mad.). (vii) Nirlon Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2015 (320) ELT 22 (SC). (viii) Patel Alloys (Steel) (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2013 (293) ELT 264 (Tri. Ahmd.) affirmed by the Gujarat High Court vide 2014 (305) ELT 476 (Guj.). (ix) CCE Vs. Special Steel Ltd., 2015 (329) ELT 449 (Tri. Mum.) affirmed by the Supreme Court vide 2016 (334) ELT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Commr. of C.Ex. Indore- 2017 (7) GSTL 115 (Tri. Del.). (ii) Vishay Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Pune-III . (iii) Gestamp Automotive India P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Pune-III. 3.1 As far as penalty is concerned, they have relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the Case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors- 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC). The learned counsel has pleaded that revenue neutrality cannot be argued for payment of duty lesser than mandated by law. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5. We find that both sides have cited the case law to substantiate their point of view. However, we find that the appellants reliance on the case of Anglo French Textiles cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
