9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of facts has been confirmed and the demand for the extended period of limitation has been upheld, therefore, there are no reason in the argument of the learned Advocate that penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not have been imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/177/2009 - A/88347/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 74,82,028/- was demanded with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, while confirming the inadmissibility of quantity discount not passed on to the customer, observed that the same is to be added to the price and assessable value be reworked out for the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was issued invoking suppression of fact for the period from May 1996 to June 2000. This Tribunal, in the remand order, upheld the demand both on merit as well as on limitation, thereafter, sent back matter to the Adjudicating authority for re-computation of demand. Therefore, there is no discrepancy in the order of the Adjudicating authority, imposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
