2019 (3) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e., tippers classifiable under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the duty paid chassis received from the chassis manufacturer M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai. The fully built motor vehicles are cleared to Regional Sales Office i.e., M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. The assessee is availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Investigations revealed that the assessee is evading payment of excise duty by resorting to short-payment of central excise duty on Fully Built Vehicles (FBV) cleared to principle manufacturer by not adopting the correct assessa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who vide the impugned order observed that when the assessee has paid the duty demanded along with interest before the issue of demand notice, in such situation imposition of penalty is not warranted and set aside the imposition of penalty. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of law. She further submitted that the assessee was aware of the correct position of law but in spite of that he did not pay the duty as per the provisions of law. She further submitted that the assessee has suppressed the material fact....