2018 (8) TMI 1449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sent appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner partially allowed the appeal and modified the Order-in-Original only to the extent of penalty imposed under Section 11A(1)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the assessee had shown and made provision for slow/non-moving goods/obsol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is passed without appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that there is no difference between writing off the stock and making provision for writing off amounts to the value and this results only in diminishing the v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... but has not substantiated anywhere that the duty is intentionally suppressed to evade; hence, the provisions can be invoked. In support of his submission the appellants relied upon the following decisions: (i) GKN Drive Line India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV [2017 (4) TMI 1081- CESTAT Chandigarh]. (ii) Radiall India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs, Bangalore [2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X