9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Member (J)]. Heard Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR for appellant and Shri K.K. Banerjee, Advocate for Respondent. Mr. Mishra submits that the statement of Sri Lalit Prasad, Director (Taxation) of M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. had admitted that they had claimed deductions under Octroi Heada amounting to Rs. 4,15,628.00 during the year 1996-97, whereas, they had actually paid Octroi Tax amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So the question of interest does not arise. He submits that the differential duty on account of Octroi has been charged and rest of the amount has not been disputed by the revenue before adjudicating authority. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be rejected. We have perused the case record and the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna. Commissioner in his order has observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is leviable and payable. For arriving at the assessable value, I find that the formula adopted by the assessee as per the observations of the Hon ble Tribunal in case of Indian Explosives Ltd. v. Collector as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 270 (Tri) is acceptable. From the submissions of assessee, it is revealed that they have accepted this fact and have paid duty accordingly. I find that the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se may be, no interest shall be payable. In present case also the duty demand has been paid prior to determination of the duty and consequently interest is not leviable. In present case the duty has been paid prior to determination of the duty liability. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner has imposed only penalty of Rs. 10,000.00. We don t find anything wrong in the order and the order do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
