2015 (5) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actors Ltd. (Now, TAFE Motors & Tractors Ltd.). In the initial period, the appellant had entertained the bonafide belief that manufacture of tractor parts on job work basis will not attract payment of central excise duty, and accordingly, while removing the tractors parts to M/s. TAFE Motors & Tractors Ltd., the appellant did not collect the central excise duty attributable to the removal of tractor parts. However, subsequently, central excise duty attributable to the removal of tractor parts for the disputed period alongwith interest was paid by the appellant. So far as leviability of Central Excise duty on job worked goods is concerned, the appellant is not contesting the same in this appeal. The appellants only grievance is with regard ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M.R. Sharma, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent submits that the ER-I return for the month of April 2006 was submitted before the Range Office on 05.07.2006 and since, the investigation process started prior to the date of submission of the ER-I return, it cannot be said that the facts intimated by the appellant in the ER-I Return were known to the Department beforehand. Thus, according to the ld. D.R., there was ample justification for invocation of the provisions of section 11AC of the Act for imposition of equal amount of penalty. 5. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. The short question involved in this appeal for determination by this Tribunal is, as to whether, the authorities below are just....