TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two orders-in-original are for different period involving the same issue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, B. Tej Enterprises, was manufacturing certain plastic moulded parts for use in the refrigerator by respondent 3 viz. Godrej Appliances Ltd. M/s. B. Tej Enterprises was paying excise duty on the parts so manufactured and cleared and Godrej Appliances Ltd. was availing the credit of the duty paid by B. Tej Enterprises. For manufacture of such plastic parts, certain moulds were required. These moulds were provided/supplied by Godrej Appliances Ltd. to B. Tej Enterprises and B. Tej Enterprises was not doing any modification in the moulds and after use, was also returning to appellant 3 viz. Godrej Appliances Ltd. as an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omputed the additional duty liability and paid the same on 28.3.2002. These acts were suo motu on the part of the respondent, B. Tej Enterprises. After the respondent paid the said amount, Revenue started investigating the case by recording certain statements and issued a show cause notice demanding interest under Section 11AB, penalty under Section 11AC and also appropriating the amount already paid. The original authority confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice and, therefore, confirmed the interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order of the original authority, the respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents relating to interest under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upport of his contention that the extended period of limitation is applicable in the present facts of the case and, therefore, interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC as also penalty on individual is imposable:- (i) Flex Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 1997 (91) ELT 120 (T); (ii) Flex Laminators & Flex Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2004 (163) ELT 297 (SC); (iii) Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2000 (117) ELT 578 (T); (iv) Bharat Automotive Pressings (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2010 (262) ELT 720 (T); (v) Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2015-TIOL-836-CESTAT-MUM. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by any central excise official and the whole action was a bona fide action and was an action to follow the Rules properly. He further submitted that after the payment of the said amount, the department started asking them to pay the penalty, interest etc. which were not legally payable and thereafter the department issued the said show cause notice. It was also submitted that it would be seen that the show cause notice was issued on 13.3.2003 i.e. after almost one year of making the payment. Further, the five-year period from the date of issuance of show cause notice goes back only upto 1.3.1998 and his client has paid the differential duty even for the period 1.4.1996 to 13.3.1998. Thus his client has paid the differential duty which was e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther submitted that all the vendors were including the proportionate cost of moulds in the assessable value. It is by inadvertent error that mistake had happened in case of one vendor and as soon as the same was realized by the vendor, the same was corrected by them by providing the necessary input. He submitted that in view of the said position, no penalty is imposable on them. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. At the outset, we observe that there is no dispute about the duty liability. The dispute is only relating to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, interest under old Section 11AB and penalty under other rules such as Rule 209A etc. As described in the brief of the case, we observe that the period in....