2019 (4) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L) Shri V. Parthasarathy, Consultant For the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of automobile parts for supplies to Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HMI) and Mobis India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mobis). Pursuant to investigations by the department, it appeared tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lated company of Mobis. Appellants had used such moulds in the manufacture of excisable goods namely automobile parts, however failed to amortize the value of the cost of the same in assessable value. The tax liability on this score for the period July 2008 to 21.08.2009, according to department, would be amounting to Rs. 34,33,151/-. (iv) Appellants had received rejected finished goods from thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dy paid towards demand and interest was appropriated by the adjudicating authority vide order dt. 30.08.2011. 2.2 Another SCN dt.07.09.2010 on aforesaid four issues as also on clearance of certain capital goods without reversal of cenvat credit was issued to appellants, proposing a total duty liability of Rs. 18,86,713/- along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC ibid. On ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es and have gone through the facts. 6. Appellants are only pleading for setting aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC ibid imposed both the adjudicating authorities and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 7. Even from the related SCNs we find that the duty demands which have been proposed in the notices had been paid up by the appellants immediately after being pointed....