2018 (6) TMI 988

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e original authority had, in addition, confirmed recovery of differential duty of Rs. 35,82,504 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08 with attendant interest liability under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The duty liability is not in dispute and respondent had discharged that between February 2008 and June 2008 before issue of show cause notice in November 2008. The impugned order has upheld the charging of interest and there is no challenge to that by the assessee. 3. The backdrop to this dispute is worth a visit. Assessee manufactured 'electrical stamping' and during the relevant period transferred goods to its sister unit by discharging duty liability, as prescribed in ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tity. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Kubo Combustion Efficiency Chem P Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2008 (225) ELT 391 (Tri-Mumbai)], and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd [2005 (179) ELT 21 (SC)] and in Dharampal Satyapal v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2005 (183) ELT 241 (SC)]. 6. Learned Counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Jay Yuhshim Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tribunal-LB)] and of the Tribunal in Nirlon Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - V [2004 (117) ELT 836 (Tri-Mumbai)] which __________ the Larger Bench and was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty. In the present appeal, the differential duty is not in question. The attempt by Revenue to cast aspersions on the tame compliance is counterproductive, to say the least. The law does not pretend to specify when the extended period can unerringly be invoked along with attendant penalties. On the contrary, it is clear from the various judicial pronouncements cited by the rival sides that intent to evade duty is ascertainable only from the facts and circumstances of each case. A single fitment to all disputes by bringing case laws on record is of little avail. 9. Assessee does not deny duty liability and has paid the dues well before issue of notice. They also made it clear that the erstwhile practice had the approval of Joint Direct....