9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause there was no malafide intention as the appellant had a favourable case. The entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20030/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21849/2018 - Dated:- 5-12-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri. M.S. Srinivasa, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants M/s. P.R. Kedarnath Multi Components, are hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of ₹ 2,35,123/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only) along with interest and penalty. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,35,123/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only) along with interest under Section 11A/11AA of Central Excise Act 1944 and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,35,123/- as per Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible in law and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. He further submitted that transfer of show-cause notice in the present case by keeping the proceedings in abeyance by transfer to call book is contrary to the statutory provision and in support of this submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.). 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that on merit the appellant has no case in view of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Suprajit Engineering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
