TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent Rep by: None PER : P R Chandrasekharan The appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.RKR(113)54/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner while confirming the demand of Rs.11,23,798/- along with interest thereon for the period 01/11/2004 to 30/09/2005 on the appellant, M/s. Rudra Galaxy Channel Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low the minimum limit prescribed in the law. 5. None appeared for the appellant. When the case came up for hearing earlier on 21/06/13, then also none appeared; thereafter the case was adjourned to 13/08/2013, 19/09/2013, 31/10/2013 and finally today. Today is the fifth time the appeal is coming up for hearing and none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, we take up the appeal for consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Agro Industries ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2007 (210) ELT 183 (SC) the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of cum tax value. 7. We have considered the submission made by the Ld. AR and perused the records. 7.1 From the appeal memorandum, it is evident that the appellant is not disputing the tax liability. However, he is se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on received should be treated as cum tax. As regards the penalty, the rule as it stood in the relevant time prescribed a minimum penalty equal to the service tax demand confirmed and a maximum penalty which was twice the amount of service tax confirmed. Therefore, discretion was available to the appellate authority only within the minimum value and the maximum value and there was no discretion giv....