2019 (4) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lower Adjudicating Authority, has been upheld with modification as proposed in the impugned order. 2. Facts of the case is that the main appellant M/s Luvvy International, F-1766, DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi 110 046 is engaged in manufacturing of different types of chocolate products and thereafter clearing the goods without payment of the duty, under the claim of SSI benefit. Revenue after getting the intelligence found that the main appellant is not entitled for SSI benefit based on the clearance for the year 2013-2014 and 2015 after the scrutiny of documents resumed in simultaneous searches on the manufacturing unit as well as on the residential premises of the partner of the company. Based on that investigation was concluded in two portion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2015-ST dated 18/08/2015 readwith Section 11 AC (1) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Duty, Penalty (15% of the duty) and interest liability deposited by you are as under : S. No. Head Liability Deposited (Rs.) 1. Central Excise Duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 6,51,442.00 2. Penalty (15% of the Central Excise Duty demand) 97,716.00 3. Interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 2,89,394.00   Total Amount 10,38,553.00 3. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the above closure of the case and passed the impugned order. 4. Learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that it is not clear from the order issued by the department regarding the closure the present proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 1329250 166156 2014-15 RECORD NO. 4 (1-96) 1620725 3241450 2269015 283627 2014-15 TALLY DATA (ABC 2) 359739 719478 503635 62954 2013-14 & 2014-15 LEDGER NO 9 (1-114) 792600 1585200 1109640 138705   TOTAL 3722528 7445056 5211539 651442 8. In view of the fact that entire duty for the manufactured goods during the said period stands paid by the appellant alongwith the interest and penalty to the extent of 15% and the same has been concluded by the department there is no legality and propriety of the order which has been passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In this regard, we find that the CBEC has also clarified the same in its Circular F. No. 137/46/2015 - Service Tax dated August 18, 2015. The relev....