Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Clariant India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/1051/06 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR/129/Th-I/06 dt. 20/01/06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================= M/s. Clariant India Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane--I :
Respondent Appearance Shri Manoj Chauhan, C.A. for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 30/11/2016
Date of pronouncement : 03/01/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The fact of the case is that there was a dispute of valuation of the excisable goods cleared by the appellant through their depot. As regard the issue of valuation it attained finality against the appellant in the case of Clariant (India) Ltd. 2006 (196) E.L.T. 353 (Tri. Mumbai) read with 2007 (213) E.L.T. 274.
2. Shri Manoj Chauhan, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the only prayer is for waiver of penalty. He submits that the issue involved was of valuation which involved the interpretation of the valuation provision. Moreover, the present case is related to the periodical show cause notice, which was issued within the normal period of one year, for this reason the penalty imposed equal to the duty amount was not warranted.
3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that it is an admitted fact that the present case is related to the periodical show cause notice on the valuation dispute. The valuation dispute has been settled by this Tribunal in the earlier proceedings, but there is no doubt that the issue involved was of valuation involving the neat of question of law. The demand in the present case is within the normal period of 1 year as this is a recurring show cause notice. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Considering all these reasons, we find that it is a fit case for waiver of penalty. The impugned order to the extent upholding the equal amount of penalty is set aside. The penalty is waived, the duty demand confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is maintained. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(Pronounced in court on 03/01/2016)
(Raju)
Member (Technical)
(Ramesh Nair)
Member (Judicial)
SM.
3
Appeal No. E/1051/06