9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the context of the intention of a party to evade duty. It is clear that the duty is chargeable but it is 100% refundable, the question of intention to evade payment of duty pales into insignificance. But where the duty charged is not 100% refundable, then any act of concealment, misstatement or suppression of facts will give rise to the intention to evade payment of duty. The case is remanded back to CESTAT for deciding the appeal afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Central Excise Ap.No.21/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2019 - Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice And Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N Mozika, Adv, Mr. ML Nongpiur, Adv For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), duty payable of value addition shall be equivalent to the amount calculated as a percentage of the total duty payable on the said excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the table and falling within the chapter of First Schedule as are given in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said table at the rates specified. The case of the appellant falls within chapter 72 of First Schedule. 4. The said notification dated 27.03.2008 was challenged before the High Court of Gauhati in a batch of writ petitions which were allowed including writ appeal vide judgment dated 20.11.2014. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon ble Apex Court. Hon ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncealment, misstatement or suppression of facts will give rise to the intention to evade payment of duty. 8. Learned CESTAT has not looked into the above circumstances, more particularly, notification dated 27.03.2008 and in the same context, it appears that CESTAT has opined that the respondent were entitled to get refund of the tax discharged by them, as a result whereof, imposition of penalty has been set aside. 9. When learned counsel for the respondent was confronted with the said position, he did not oppose, remand of the case for fresh consideration by CESTAT rightly so because order of CESTAT for the stated reasons is not sustainable, same is set aside. The case is remanded back to CESTAT for deciding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
