9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate. 2. The applicants are manufacturers of steel re-rolled products. They sell their products from the gate as well as from the depots at Bangalore and at Ernakulam. The Department, on investigation, found that the applicants have adopted incorrect assessable value for the sales made from the depots. Accordingly, the present Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to include forwarding charges from the factory to the depot and demanded differential duty of Rs. 87,24,986/- apart from proposing interest and penalty on the said amount. 3. In the settlement application, the applicants contended that they were paying excise duty on the depot sales regularly. As they were not aware of the exact methodology ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they did not furnish the required information to the Department from time to time. Invoice-wise details of clearances made from the factory and corresponding sales from the depot were not furnished. Therefore, there was a deliberate attempt to mis-declare the value and suppress information from the Department. Instead of opting for provisional assessment, they determined the duty payable and discharged incorrect duty. According to the Department, the applicant company did not disclose the full duty liability. Therefore, the Revenue requested that the application should be rejected for non-disclosure of full liability. 5. During the hearing held on 4-7-2006, Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no suppression of any fact and in fact, the applicants were keeping the Department fully aware of the steps that they have taken with regard to the valuation of the goods sold from the depots. On examining the documents produced by the applicants, we find that the applicants have been regularly writing to the Department seeking advise about the method to be adopted for arriving at the value of goods sold from the depots. It is clear that the Department has not responded to any of these letters from the applicants. Further, they were also intimating from time to time about the payment of differential duty and they have also enclosed detailed worksheets indicating how they have arrived at the differential duty. The Department s con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid on 20-1-2006 i.e., within 30 days from the date of issue of the Show Cause Notice. As the bulk of the amount was paid before the issue of the Show Cause Notice, we are inclined to grant immunity from interest. As the entire amount admitted has already been paid, the Bench sought clarification from both the parties whether there was any objection to treat this as Admission-Cum-Final hearing. As there was no objection from either side, the Bench orders that this may be treated as Admission-cum-Final hearing. 9. In view of the cooperation shown by the applicants, the Bench is of the view that the matter can be settled and the applicants are entitled to all the immunities including immunity from interest. Accordingly, the application i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
