9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri H.S. Anantha Padmanabha, learned Advocate appeared for the party and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. We heard both the sides. E/1099/2006 3. The appellant received raw materials for the manufacture of Storage Tanks on job work basis. The goods were actually 101 Diesel Storage Tanks. They were cleared without payment of duty and without following any Central Excise procedure during the period from April 2004 to March 2005. In view of the above infraction, the Revenue proceeded against the party demanding Central Excise duty. In terms of the show cause notice issued, the aggregate clearances of the goods by the party comes to Rs. 1,05,59,549/-. Since the value of clearances has been exceeded the exemption l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f scrap has crept in twice in the calculation. Another point made by the learned Advocate is that the sales tax paid has to be deducted and the entire value has to be taken as cum duty price. 4. On going through the Commissioner s, (Appeals) order, we found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reasoned that the party had not paid any sales tax. The sales tax paid in respect of the raw material cannot be deducted by the party because they had not paid any sales tax and the cost of the material in the party s hand includes even the sales tax paid. Only when the party sells certain items manufactured and cleared by them, while paying duty, the sales tax paid has to be subtracted. In our view, the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already been included in the job charges collected which is equal to Rs. 42,09,740/-. E/136/2007 5. As regards the Revenue s appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved over the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the equal penalty imposed. On going through the Commissioner s (Appeals) order, we find that the Commissioner s reasoning is correct. He has only followed the decisions of the Tribunal as the party has pad the duty liability along with interest well before the issue of show cause notice. The entire thing is a question of interpretation. From the records, it is seen that the party was under the bona fide impression that they need not discharge the duty liability in respect of the amount equal to the sales tax paid on the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
