2025 (8) TMI 1839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and imposing penalty are sustainable or not. 2. M/s. Thraiking Industrial Controls the Appellant is manufacturing parts of control panels for elevators and alleging that the Appellant who were issued with parts, free supply material by the principal manufacturer, M/s. Otis Elevators has not paid appropriate central excise duty as required under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, proceedings were initiated, show cause notice was issued for the period from January, 2009 to September, 2013 by invoking the extended period of limitation. After hearing the Appellant, the Adjudication Authority as per the impugned order, confirmed the demand only for normal period from 2013-2014 (08.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is no loss of revenue. Thus, the Adjudication Authority dropped the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and also penalty, since no malafide can be attributed to them, the issue being a genuine issue of interpretation of law. The Learned Counsel further submits that the Audit was regularly carried out in the Appellant's premises and also draws our attention to the Audit Note No. 112/2009 dated 15.05.2009, 402/2012 dated February 2012 and the documents furnished by the Appellant pertaining to the relevant period vide letter dated 28.11.2011 as required by the department. Facts being so, no suppression can be alleged and confirming the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and imposing penalty are unsustainabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned Counsel also draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Anand Nishikava Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, wherein it is held that:- "Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462], we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty, when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppre....