2016 (2) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri S.. Chandrasekhar, Manager (Excise) ORDER PER: RAMESH NAIR The appeal of the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/AKD/127/NSK/APL/2005 dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents have cleared 105 Nos. of prototype vehicle on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), who allowed the appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Shri R.K. Maji, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty only on relying the judgment of the Tribunal in case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and they also requested for extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 161/71 dated 11.7.1971. It is only on departments rejection of the request for extending the benefit of notification, respondent admittedly suo motu paid the duty along with interest. It is his submission that right from beginning the entire facts of the clearance of prototype vehicle was in the knowledge of the dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claimed exemption under Notification No. 161/71 and on rejection of the request for extending the benefit of the said notification by the department, they cleared the vehicles on payment of duty taking the highest approximate value of the vehicles. In the present case, the issue is only of payment of differential duty which also they paid before issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, we do not....