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 6]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Shri Jagdamba Castings Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 23 January, 2008

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM,
 NEW DELHI

COURT -II

EXCISE APPEAL No. 2741 OF 2006-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 145/CE/Appl/Bpl/2006 dated 19.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President

1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?	
2.	Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?	
3.	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?	
4.	Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?	

M/s. Shri Jagdamba Castings Pvt. Ltd.                                 Appellants

	Vs.

CCE, Bhopal                                                                       Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate for the appellants, Ms. Archana Pandey Mittal, Jt. CDR, for the respondent, Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 23.1.2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.

2. The only contention of the appellants is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order accepted the value of the goods for the purpose of Central Excise duty and ordered that the duty is to be re-quantified taking into consideration the rate of goods as Rs. 16000/- per M.T. in stead of Rs. 20000/- per M.T. The contention is that penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the appellants but the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had not gave any finding regarding re-quantification of penalty under Section 11AC.

3. In view of the fact that for the purpose of assessment the value as claimed by the appellants was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act shall be equal to the amount of duty re-calculated by the Revenue. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT Dated 28th January, 2008 RK