9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curred on point of law and there existed reasonable basis for doubt in discharge of duty liability - However, in the present appeals both invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty and interest are being confirmed by the Commissioner, even by distinguishing the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. [ 2006 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT ] - We cannot do so nor would encourage such thin line distinction to bypass the judicial precedent set by the highest Court of this land. In the instant case, in view of the discussions, with the consent and concurrence of both the parties, instead of remanding it back, Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982 should be invoked in, putting an end to the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout paying the required duty. Show-cause notice was accordingly issued on 09.07.1998 with extended period covering the financial year from 1993-94 to 1997 -98. During the relevant period normal period as provided under Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act was six months. Appellant challenged the same, matter was adjudicated upon that resulted in confirmation of duty demanded along with interest and penalty on the Appellant firm and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on its proprietor Mr. Mansukh Ashdev along with order for confiscation of seized goods and redemption fine of Rs.4,000/- for such release of goods. The Appellant-Assessee is before us challenging the legality of the same order in appeal No. E/1104/2008. 3. Respondent-Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissionerate, seized invoices were not supplied to the Appellant to put forth its defence, for which the demand is not sustainable for the normal period also and there was no malafide intention forthcoming in the evidence of record that would justify invocation of extended period and therefore the order passed by the learned Commissioner is required to be set aside. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent- Department, while arguing in favour of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the learned Commissioner had pointed out the calculation error that was found reflected in the review order at page 7 para 4.2, needs to be corrected with its bearing on interest and penalty. 6. We have heard the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence on record it is quite evident that appellant had already paid Rs.3,50,000/- during investigation which is much higher than the entire demand raised for the normal period that would also meet the interest component. Hence the order. ORDER 8. Appeal of the partly allowed on issue of limitation. However taking note of the fact that Appellant have already paid Rs.3,50,000/- lakhs during investigation which is higher than the entire demand for the period covered under limitation, we do not intend the matter to go back after 29 years to original authority for re-computation etc. Taking note of the submissions made by both sides, we are of view that entire amount deposited by the appellant can be adjusted against the demand for peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
