2018 (4) TMI 1147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for supply to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (HMIL). Appellant cleared automobile parts to their depots at Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkatta which were registered as manufactured locations adopting value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Department took the view that in respect of the clearances of the appellant, the valuation should have been done only under Section 4 ibid.  Hence show cause notices were issued to them for the period September 2012 to March 2013 and April 2013 to September 2013 inter alia demanding a total differential duty of Rs. 27,04,45,505/- with interest thereon and also proposing imposition of penalty. Adjudicating authority vide impugned order No. LTUC / 341 & 342/2014-C dt. 03.11.2014 confirmed these p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nfirmation of interest does not arise. 3. On the other hand, ld. A.R Shri R. Subramaniyan supports the impugned order with respect to confirmation of demand of differential duty and interest. He submits that interest liability will be very much applicable since the differential duty in question was paid up by the assessee only after issue of SCN. In respect of department's appeal he submits that adjudicating authority has dropped penalty only on the aspect of revenue-neutrality which is not a correct interpretation since there are number of case laws which upheld penalties even in such cases. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts.  In the final order relied upon by Ld. Advocate for the assessee for an earlier period, th....