2018 (11) TMI 350 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty – duty demand along with interest has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of SCN – difference in the assessable value adopted by the appellant when cars were cleared from its factory premises and the final sale price adopted by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. to the dealer – Short payment of service tax – no suppression of facts – Held that:- Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have discharged excess duty during the impugned period and also the fact that the department has quantified the figure on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the appellant themselves for confirming the demand, it is held that the ingredients necessary for imposing penalty under section 11AC is not attracted in the present case.
–
There is nothing to establish that the appellants have suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The scenario that short-payment of duty had occurred was only because the a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ss payment when the price was adopted with Delhi dealer and there was shortage of ₹ 20,94,086/-. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand the differential duty for the impugned period from July 2011 to March 2012 along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri Rajaram submitted that the appellant is contesting only the penalty imposed. The duty demand along with interest has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of show cause notice. He submitted that the difference / shortage was only because of the mistake in the method adopted by the appellant for arriving the assessable value. They had adopted the assessable value of the clearances made to the dealers in Delhi on the belief that this is the highest price. In fact, on intimati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Central Excise – 2018 (8) TMI 1574; Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2018 (8)TMI 1568 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2009 (6) TMI 704. He therefore prayed that the penalty may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the impugned payment of duty would not have come to light unless the department conducted investigations. The appellants have violated the provisions of law since they have wrongly arrived at the assessable value. The ingredients of imposing equal penalty are sufficiently attracted and there is no ground for interference with the order impugned. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellants have issued letter dated 29.3.2016 to the Assistant Director, DGCEI wherein the appellants have stated as under:- Pursuant to your visit, we have undertaken the excise of reconciling the actual excise dut
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
follows:- Sl. No. Years Value Rs. Excise Duty Rs. Interest Remarks 1. 2010-11 NIL NIL NIL There is no excise duty shortage identified 2. 2011-12 1,80,55,683/- 20,94,06/- 15,06,752/- GAR challans enclosed 6. From the above letter, it can be seen that, on being pointed out by the department, the appellant themselves have undertaken the exercise of verifying whether there is difference in the higher value adopted by them for discharging the central excise duty. They had been in the practice of adopting the price of cars cleared to the Delhi dealers on the notion that, that was the highest price. After conducting verification by themselves, it was found that clearances made to some other dealers were also on higher rate. They have immediately discharged the excise duty along with interest. It is also noted in the reply to the notice that they had discharged excess duty of ₹ 10,06,683/- and they have not filed any refund claim for this amount since the same was hit by limitation. Whe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =