2003 (12) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri S.M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 9-5-2003 upholding the imposition of penalty against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1.25 lakh and demand of interest under Section 11AB w.e.f. 28-9-96. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he duty demand imposed a penalty of an equal amount invoking Section 11AC. Interest under Section 11AB was also ordered. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Manager (Finance and Accounts) of the appellant-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the invocation of 11AC but reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs. 13,93,980/- to Rs. 1.25 lakh. He set aside the personal penalty impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibility of cost of amortized in the assessable value. In CCE, Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. P. Ltd. - 1999 (85) ECR 94, Creative Cartons v. CCE, Mumbai - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 79 and Velpack Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/6222/92-A it was held that cost of moulds and dies supplied free of cost are not includible in the assessable value. In Flex Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (91) E....