2023 (2) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acts with intent to evade duty or not - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the company M/s. JSL Industries Ltd. have been clearing their goods on payment of excise duty though valuing the goods under Section 4 and they were issuing the central excise invoices. The only dispute is that whether the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company s stand was that they were supply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m is that value should be determined in terms of Section 4A. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of differential duty and also imposed a penalty on both the present appellants under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main case of the company M/s. JSL Industries Ltd. under Appeal No. 813 of 2012 has been settled under SVLDR Scheme and their appeal stood disposed of vide CESTA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company s stand was that they were supplying goods to industries therefore, they were under belief that goods should be valued under Section 4. In the peculiar facts of this case, I do not find any mala fide intention on the part of these appellants. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty imposed on both the appellants. Appeals are a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X