9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing pointed out by auditors for the period February, 2010 to February, 2011 under protest only because the Appellant was under bona fide belief that their product does not qualify under the category of automobiles and thus they were not liable to pay cess for which they received no clarity from the department with respect to their liability. It is pertinent to note here that the department has taken no effort to establish any tests/ingredients as to why the product of the appellant will be classifiable as automobile for the levy of automobile cess and has simply taken the support of Notification 67/88 dated 09/01/1989 to levy automobile cess on the Appellant. The entire demand for automobile cess has been raised from the Audit Objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29/04/2008, Electrically Operated Vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were exempted from duty of excise leviable thereon hence the appellant did not pay Automobile cess. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the submissions made by Appellant has confirmed the demand on them with regards to the levy of Automobile Cess vide Order in Appeal No. KCH/EXCUS/000/APP/018-14-15 dated 27.05.2014. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that both the lower authorities have erred in confirming the demand and imposing penalties and charging interest on the Appellants in so far alleging that the Appellants have suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide Notification No. 25/2008-CE. Further we observe that the Appellant has paid automobile cess upon being pointed out by auditors for the period February, 2010 to February, 2011 under protest only because the Appellant was under bona fide belief that their product does not qualify under the category of automobiles and thus they were not liable to pay cess for which they received no clarity from the department with respect to their liability. It is pertinent to note here that the department has taken no effort to establish any tests/ingredients as to why the product of the appellant will be classifiable as automobile for the levy of automobile cess and has simply taken the support of Notification 67/88 dated 09/01/1989 to levy automobile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
