Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Tfl Quinn India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 16 December, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE

Final Order No.  27133/2013    
Application(s) Involved:

E/MISC/28523/2013 in E/2558/2011-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

E/2558/2011-DB 

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 59/2011 dated 10/06/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad]

TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. 
100%Eou, TFL Estate, Bachupally Village, Near Miyapur, 
Hyderabad - 500 090 	Appellant(s)
	
	Versus	
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax  Hyderabad-IV 
Posnett Bhawan,
Tilak Road, Ramkoti, 
Hyderabad - 500 001,
Andhra Pradesh
	Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr Raghavendra, Consultant 301,Moon Rock Residency, Plot No.205, Kalyan Nagar Phase-1 , Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh For the Appellant Mr N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 16/12/2013 Date of Decision: 16/12/2013 Order Per: JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM Heard the learned consultant for the appellant-assessee and learned Departmental Representative for the respondent-Revenue. The Additional Commissioner Customs and Central Excise by the order dated 25.03.2011 confirmed the central excise duty demand of Rs. 12,09,308/- besides interest and penalty as specified in the order, in respect of the show-cause notice dated 03.02.2010 and a demand of Rs. 60,607/- apart from interest and penalties assessed in respect of another show-cause notice dated 28.12.2010. The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed by the order-in-appeal dated 10.06.2011. In respect of the order pertaining to the later show-cause notice, the appellate authority reduced the penalty from Rs. 60,607/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal to this Tribunal.

2. It is represented by the learned consultant for the appellant and this submission is fairly conceded by the learned Departmental Representative, that the appeal requires to be allowed in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur  II [2013-TIOL-614-CESTAT-DEL-LB].

3. Both the parties are agreed that this appeal must be allowed in terms of the Larger Bench decision in Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Hence we allow this appeal and set aside the appellate order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad and the order-in-original dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV. No costs. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court) ( JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM) PRESIDENT (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss