9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Tribunal in the Final Order is simply of classification and/or interpretation. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to revenue and accordingly the demand shall be limited to normal period of limitation only. Further there is no discussion with regard to penalty imposed on the appellant-company. In view of the facts and circumstances we allow this ground and hold that no penalty is imposable on company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. So far the other two appellants are concerned namely, Vijay Singhvi and D.I. Desarda who were the employees of the company and have been visited with penalty as noticed by Tribunal in Para 2 of the Final Order. However, we find that in the aforement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput services as applicable. Further directed that the appellant-company shall be entitled to cum duty benefit. In this view of the matter we are convinced that there is an error on the part of this Tribunal in not deciding the issue of limitation. Under the facts and circumstances we appreciate the error on record. Further considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions we hold that the issue involved, as held by this Tribunal in the Final Order is simply of classification and/or interpretation. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to revenue and accordingly the demand shall be limited to normal period of limitation only. 3. Further we also find that there is no discussion with reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of tax evasion, no deliberate act - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE v/s CHEMPHAR DRUGS & LINIMENTS 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.). d. On personal penalty-where appellant is working as on employee, not having any independent existence, no motive can be attributed. - Z.U. ALVI v/s COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL, Bhopal. 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal). 4. So far the other two appellants are concerned namely, Vijay Singhvi and D.I. Desarda who were the employees of the company and have been visited with penalty as noticed by Tribunal in Para 2 of the Final Order. However, we find that in the aforementioned final order, neither there is any discussion with respect to their appeals nor there is any express rejection of their appeals. Thus, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
