(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
M/s. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. ___________________ Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Cent. Excise & Customs ______________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 1826 of 2008, Decided on April 4, 2016
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 2993 of 2008
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
IN C.A. No. 1826 OF 2008
1. Having regard to the fact that only the meager amount is involved, we are not entertaining this appeal. Which is accordingly dismissed.
IN C.A. No. 2993 OF 2008
2. The appellant herein had declared lesser price for the goods which were cleared for home consumption. When it was detected and pointed out, differential amount was claimed which was paid by the appellant. On that basis penalty proceedings were also initiated against the appellant and the penalty was imposed which has been upheld by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the CESTAT’) in the impugned judgment. We find from the orders of the assessing authority as well as the CESTAT, that a clear finding of the fact is arrived at to the effect that there was a deliberate under-valuation which is discerned from the Resolution dated 2nd August, 1996 passed by the appellant itself. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1826/2008
M/s. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd..….Appellant(s)
v.
Commissioner of Cent. Excise & Customs.….Respondent(s)
With
C.A. No. 2993/2008
Date: 04/04/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.
Mr. Preshit Surshe, Adv.
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
3. Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
