9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the penalty imposed to Rs. 10,000/-. The order of adjudicating authority is reproduced below: "(i) Under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1318365/- in respect of five show cause notices against M/s Shogini Techno Arts Pvt Ltd, situated at Gat No 755-756, Khed Shivapur, Tal Haveli Dist. Pune as detailed below. Sl No Show cause notice F No and date of SCN Period Involved Total Differential Value (Rs) Duty amount involved (Rs) 1 F No P-II/ SCN/Shogini/03 dated 06.02.09 1.1.08 to 29.02.08 9,38,935 1,54,736.55 2 F No P-II/ SCN/Shogini/03 dated 19.03.09 1.3.08 to 31.07.08 22,65,583 3,26,697 3 F No P-II/ SCN/Shogini/03 dated 03.04.09 1.8.08 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eloped by them they recover the charges incurred towards such development over and above the cost of PCB from their customers. These charges recovered separately are part of the assessable value for computing the central duty payable in respect of such PCB's 2.2 In cases where the design/ art work/ photo film is supplied free of cost by their customer, the charges/ cost of such design/ art work/ photo film is not amortized for inclusion in the assessable value of the PCB's for the purpose of payment of duty. 2.3 In respect of the cases where the design/ art work/ photo film was supplied free of cost by the customer, show cause notices for period 01.06.2006 to 31.12.06 and 01.07.07 to 31.12.07 were adjudicated by the Commissioner Central; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value cannot be sustained. (iii) Reliance on the Cost accountant Certificate for ascertainment of value of design/ art work/ photo film prepared by the appellants themselves for determination of value of design/ art work/ photo film supplied by the customers is not justified. (iv) The normal price concept as applied by the authorities below is not applicable for the valuation after 1st June 2000. (v) Penalty imposed on them is not justified, when there was no proposal for the same in Show Cause, and penalty could not have been imposed without confiscation of the goods. 4.0 We have heard Shri J N Somaiya Advocate for the appellant and Shri N N Prabhudesai, Assistant Commissioner, authorized representative for the revenue. 5.0 The issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis the assessable value has been derived and duty thereupon was calculated. We thus find that the demand has been worked out as per the Tribunal's order and is correct. However we find from the facts of the case that the issue involved has remained disputed. In such case we also do not find any intention to evade duty payment by the Appellant as all the information were appearing and no attempt has been made to suppress the same. In such view of facts we find that the demands raised by invoking extended period of limitation and penalties under section 11AC and Rule 25 is not sustainable. We thus hold that the demand for the extended period and the penalties against the Appellant are not sustainable. For the same reason we set aside the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
