Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Limited ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, ... on 13 December, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/624/2010-DB Date of Hearing/ Decision : 13.12.2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. OIA- 54/NS/ADJN/2009 dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & ST, Delhi IV] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) M/s. Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Limited (Unit-I) : Appellant vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi IV : Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri Atul Handa, A.R. for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 62144 / 2017 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed along with interest and penalty.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in fabrication of body chassis supplied by M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited (SML for short). During the relevant time the appellant received chassis from SML and paid duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Rule 10A of the Central Excise valuation Rules, whereas, the appellant has required to pay duty of whole of the body built and inclusive of the valuation of chassis in the goods cleared by SML. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand differential duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules and the matters were adjudicated, demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and penalties were also imposed. Against the said orders, the appellant is before us.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case, for the earlier period, vide Final Order No. 61971-61972/2017 dated 10.10.2017, this Tribunal as confirmed the demand along with interest but dropped the penalties against the appellant. The said order is under challenge before the Honble Apex Court, therefore he prays that penalty on the appellant is to be evaded. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. We find that in the appellants own case, for the earlier period, this Tribunal observed as under:-
3. Heard the parties considering the fact that the identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles V. CCE-2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri. Del.) wherein it has been held that the assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules i.e. on the value at which the principal manufacturer cleared the goods on payment of duty, therefore, the differential duty is confirmed along with interest.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also disputed invokation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty on them, on the ground that the issue whether they are required to pay duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules was in dispute and the same has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles (Supra) on 21.05.2009. We take a note of the fact that in the case of Audi Automobiles (Supra) itself, this Tribunal observed that the appellant cannot be accused of my suppression documents. In that circumstance, we hold that the extended period is not invokable. Consequently, the demands pertaining to the extended period of limitation are set aside. As the extended period of limitation is not invokable, and there is no mala-fide intention of the appellant, moreover, the issue is of a valuation, therefore, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant.
5. With these terms, the following order is passed:
(A) Demand of duty within the period of limitation is confirmed along with interest. (B) Penalties are not imposable on the appellant. Therefore, relying on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellants own case, we hold that demand of duty along with interest is confirmed. However, no penalty is imposable on the appellant.
3. With these terms, the appeal is disposed of.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the court) Devender Singh Member (Technical) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) KL 3 Appeal No. E/624/2010-DB