9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the Appellants manufacture chewing tobacco falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi, under Order-in-Original No. 13/99 dated 30-9-1999 confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 39,53,024/- for the period from 1-10-1996 to 11-3-1999 and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, holding that they had misdeclared the place of removal in their price declaration and that the sale was completed at the destination of the buyer where delivery was effected finally in terms of amendment of Section 4(4)(b) of the Act; that an appeal was preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Delhi-1 respectively, in both the cases. Thus on the limited issue, both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd., are remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi respectively. 3. He mentioned that pursuant to the said remand directions Commissioner, Delhi-1 has passed the impugned Order; that the Commissioner has observed wrongly in the impugned Order that the Tribunal had upheld the Order No. 13/99 in so far as it related to demand of Rs. 39,53,024/- under the extended period of Section 11A; that it is, therefore, evident that the Commissioner has proceeded on altogether wrong premises inasmuch the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same was in the form prescribed by the Department; that the Board s Circular No. 272/106/96-CX, dated 21-11-1996 clearly mentioned that In case the information contained in the declaration appears, prima facie, incorrect, or the declaration indicates that the assessable value declared by the assessee as required under Rule 173C(1) is/are apparently not in confirmity with Section 4 of CEA, 1944, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner may cause necessary inquiry to be conducted; that it is not mentioned in the Order in what manner the Appellants had suppressed any fact; that the burden of proving that extended period of limitation is invokable, is on the Department. The learned Counsel finally submitted that once the Larger Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip of the excisable goods remained with the manufacturer upto the place of the buyer from where the said goods were delivered to the buyer, what would be the place of removal for the purpose of Clause (iii) of Section 4(4)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal after answering the reference, took up both the appeals for disposal which is evident from Paragraph 14 of the Order which reads as under :- 14. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 7. The Larger Bench took note of the penalty imposed on the Appellants by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida and the penalty imposed on them by the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
