TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding penalty on the Appellant under Section 11-AC of the Act, 1944 since the confirmation of demand results in a Revenue neutral situation? (b) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding penalty on the Appellant under Section 11-AC of the Act, where the assessee paid the tax demand along with interest prior to the issuance of show cause notice itself?" 3. The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Special Purpose Machine (SPM) falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequent to information received, a unit of Anti-evasion squad on 18th July, 2003 visited the premises of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant did not dispute its liability of duty and interest as confirmed by the lower authority. The grievance was restricted only to the imposition of penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act. It was the contention of the Appellant as that the entire duty of Rs. 43.26 lakhs along with interest was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, the Authorities could not have issued a show cause notice, much less impose any penalty upon them. In support, reliance was placed upon Section 11A(2B) of the Act. It was further contended that it was a bona fide mistake on their part in not having included the entire value of the free supplies while computing the value of SPM a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issuance of the show cause notice. 7. The Appellant is aggrieved with the impugned order of the Tribunal in appeal before us. 8 Re. Question (a):- (i) Mr. Oswal, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the Appeal states that there is no occasion to impose any penalty as the demand of tax itself is not sustainable. In support, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Products (P) Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise 183 ELT 239 to contend that no duty could be demanded on SPM cleared/ removed by the Appellant on job work under the CENVAT Credit Rules, if the Appellant had adopted an alternate method/ procedure for clearing the goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, it....