2016 (8) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arch, 2006, on account of non-inclusion of warranty charges in the assessable value of goods (automatic teller machines) supplied by the appellants to the State Bank of India. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued Show cause notice No. 30/2006 dated 4/10/2006 demanding duty of Rs. 1,57,72,214/- Crores and vide corrigendum dated 13.06.2007 the demand was increased to Rs. 1,58,92,446/- Crores under proviso to Section 11A (1) and also proposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Another Show cause notice F.No. GFCEI/MZU/1&IS D/12(4)112/05 dated December, 2006 was issued by the Addl. Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai for demand of differential duty of Rs. 69,24,824/- under proviso to Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts that the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand as per the first SCN and imposed personal penalty as per the second SCN. He also submits that the adjudicating authority cannot confirm demand on both SCNs and first he should decide which SCN he is going to adjudicate and then proceeded to decide the same. He also submits that the adjudicating authority has not given reasonable opportunity of cross examination of witnesses. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly combined both the SCNs in his adjudication order and he submits that the DGCI initiated investigation proceedings on all India basis whereas the Commissioner has adjudicated the SCN dated 04.10.2006 independently. The DGCI ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting authority at page 30 & 31, we find that the adjudicating authority in his findings confirmed the duty demand in the above two SCNs and the first SCN was issued by the Commissioner himself on 4.10.06 and also invoked extended period of limitation and the second SCN also proposed for demand of duty of Rs. 69 Lakhs and invoked extended period of limitation. We find in the first SCN, there was no proposal for any personal penalty another co-noticees whereas under the second SCN there was proposal of personal penalty on 4 persons under Rule 26 of CER. We find that the adjudicating authority in his order confirmed the duty on both the SCNs whereas imposed penalty on the Managing Director as per the second SCN. It is pertinent to see that the....