TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a (STPI) scheme, Bengaluru. The appellant is inter alia a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software solutions provider. The appellant provides flexible and affordable CRM software which enables Customer Lifecycle Management across sales, services and marketing functions and power organisations to quickly, effectively and accurately communicate customers using a multichannel communication strategy. The CRM software comprises of various modules like e-mail, phone, chat, SMS, text messaging, print, portal etc. 2.2. An investigation conducted by the DGCEI, Chennai revealed that the appellant has manufactured and sold Packaged Software as Talisma CRM without payment of duty, for the period 01/03/2006 to 31/10/2008. Consequent to investiga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 11A(2B) of the Act covers their case as it envisages payment of tax with interest in a case where non-payment of tax is on account of the tax ascertained by the Central Excise officer. She further submitted that the appellant on being pointed out by the DGCEI authorities, paid the central excise duty along with interest in accordance with their determination for the period March 2006 to October 2008 and intimated the same to the Department vide letter dt. 12/2/2009. She further submitted that the appellant on 23/12/2010 made an additional payment of Rs. 1,49,802/- along with interest of Rs. 53,194/- on account of a clerical error in considering the rate of duty as 8.24% instead of 12.36% for the month of March 2008. She further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....995(78) ELT 401 (SC)] v. Ashirvad Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Kolkata [2013(288) ELT 172 (Pat.)] 4.2. She further submitted that when the duty along with interest has been paid by the assessee prior to issuance of the show-cause notice then in that case no penalty under Section 11AC of the Act imposable. In support of her submission, she relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Chennai Vs. POS Hyundai Steel Manufacture (I) Ltd. [2014(306) ELT 226 (Mad.)] ii. Sheetal Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Mumbai-I [2015(330) ELT 508 (Tri. Mumbai)] iii. Empee Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I [2015(329) ELT 714 (Tri. Mum.)] 4.3. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in the case of Abyss (the Hutch Shop) Vs. CST, Ahmedabad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and the appellant on being pointed out by the DGCEI paid the duty along with interest in accordance with the determination made by the DGCEI for the period March 2006 to October 2008 and informed the Department accordingly and prayed that show-cause notice may not be issued. But in spite of that, the Department issued a show-cause notice, invoking the extended period of limitation and demanded the duty along with interest and also proposed to impose penalty under Section 11AC and both the authorities have confirmed the penalty on the ground of suppression. Further I also find that the excise duty on the packaged software was introduced for the first time w.e.f. 01/03/2006 and the appellant had a bona fide belief that their software is not....