9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gory, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. G. Chacko, Member (J) (for the Bench)]. The lower authorities have demanded duty of over Rs. 37.00 lakhs from the assessee for the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. The demand is consequential to denial of SSI benefit. During the material period, they were eligible for exemption from payment of duty on specified goods cleared in excess of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regate value of clearances for home consumption, for the purpose of ascertaining the duty liability. The assessee did not include the clearances of branded goods for the determination of aggregate value of clearances. The lower authorities included such clearances in the aggregate value and accordingly raised the above demand. Their decision is, prima facie, correct. 2. After considering the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act have not been found in this case. It is contended that, as the case largely rests on interpretation of the provisions of the relevant notifications, it cannot be said that the assessee has wilfully done anything to evade payment of duty. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Lloyd Insulation India - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 430 (Tri). It is pointed out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) on the question whether the duty for the extended period was demandable from the assessee. Prima facie, the assessee has made out a case, on the ground of limitation, against the demand of a major part of the duty amount. It appears from the records that the duty of Rs. 2,56,867/- pertains to the normal period, and so is an amount of Education Cess of Rs. 2,439/-. 4. In the result, as ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
