Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Cee Cee Power Hydraulics Pvt. ... vs Cce, Indore on 31 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 31.10.2016 Excise Appeal No. 1717, 1724, 1731-1732 of 2010 (Arising out of order in appeal No. INDI/081/2010 dated 01.04.2010, OIA No. IND-I/102/2010 dated 08.04.2010, OIA No. IND-I/077/2010 dated 29.03.2010 and No. IND-I/101/2010 dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore). M/s Cee Cee Power Hydraulics Pvt. Limited Appellant Jayesh Chhugani M/s Cee Cee Power Hydraulics Pvt. Limited Jayesh Chhugani Vs. CCE, Indore Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 54663 54666/ 2016 Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
All the four appeals pertain to the period April 2007 to October 2007 and November 2007 to June 2008. In all the appeals the identical issue is involved and both sides submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal, Final Order No. 52503-52504/2016 dated 04.07.2016, wherein it was observed as under:
3. We have considered the contention of both sides. It has been fairly conceded by ld. Advocate for the appellant that on merits the issue of liability to duty stands settled against the appellant vide CESTAT order in the cases of Audi Automobiles (supra) and Hywa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the duty and interest are recoverable. However, in both the judgments the Tribunal has clearly stated that in view of the facts and circumstances in those cases which are similar to the facts and circumstances in the present cases) no penalty was warranted. As regards the contention of the ld. DR that the appellant had entered into a colourable arrangement to evade duty, we would like to observe that CESTAT in aforesaid two judgments had taken into account the circumstances obtaining in those two cases and found imposition of penalty unwarranted and therefore to uphold penalty in these cases involving similar circumstances would be tantamount to showing disrespect to the judicial precedents.
4. We do find force in the appellants submission that their contention regarding non-includability of taxes in the assessable value for determining the quantum of duty has not been adverted to by the primary adjudicating authority though the contention was raised before him.
5. In the light of foregoing, we allow the appeal by way of remand to the primary adjudicating authority with the following direction:-
(1) No penalty is warranted in these cases.
(2) The demand should be recomputed, if necessary, after considering the contention of the appellant regarding non-includability of taxes in the assessable value.
2. By following the earlier order the present appeals are also disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra) President (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) Pant