2023 (6) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) And HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per : ASHOK JINDAL : These Appeals are filed by the Appellants seeking dropping the penalty of Rs.1.00 Lakh imposed on them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts in both the cases are identical, therefore, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed on the Appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Appellants, nor any request has been received. Considering the issue itself can be decided at this stage, therefore the Appeals are taken up for consideration. 5. We find that similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Tata Motor Ltd. & Others vide Order No.A/1263-1347....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttributable towards each component manufactured by them. It is pertinent to note that though such a large number of vendors were manufacturing and supplying the components to M/s. Tata Motors over a long period, and in respect of which M/s. Tata Motors have been taking credit of input duty, the Departmental Authorities themselves had not raised the issue at any point of time earlier that the value....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustained for the normal period of limitation. In view of the fact that the show cause notices have been issued on various dates, the matter requires to be sent back to the Original Authority to calculate the additional duty amount for the normal period in each case. Since we have held that there is no suppression, misstatement etc., the additional duty to be paid by the Respondent Vendors would al....