2018 (5) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of this Tribunal in the case of Interscape & Ors Vs. CCE, Calcutta-I - 2001 (43) RLT 350 (CEGAT-Kol). In remand proceedings the demand was again confirmed and penalty was imposed against M/s Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Shri Raghbir Singh Chaney. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they were engaged in undertaking contracts for construction of offices. He pointed out that during the visit of Officers in their premises, record of three companies were functioning namely (a) M/s Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL), (b) M/s Raghbir Furnishers (RF) and (c) M/s Raghbir Interiors (RI) were recovered. In the statement of Shri H.S. Devang, Accountant of M/s RIPL, he stated that they were undertaking manufacture of furn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(347) ELT 373 (Tri.-Mumbai) to assert that it was a issue of interpretation and therefore the appeal should be allowed on the ground of limitation. He also argue that the show-cause notice does not invoke any specific sub-clause of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore in terms of decision of Apex Court in the case of Amrit Foods Vs. CCE, UP reported at 2005 (190) ELT 433 (S.C.) no penalty can be levied. He further argues in so far as imposition of penalty on Director of the company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned, the same cannot be imposed as there is no confiscation of the goods. 3. Learned A.R. relied on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions, we find that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the demands would be entirely hit by time bar and in certain cases, the demands had to be limited to the normal period. Further, it was urged that the assessee had entertained a bona fide belief that substantial part of the claim cannot be sustained. Non-disclosure or not taking of a licence was not done with an intention to evade payment of duty. The following case-laws were relied on: (a) Tecumseh Products India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 498 (S.C.) (b) Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (c) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) (d) Padmini Products v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (e) T....