9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomers by raising separate commercial invoices which were not included in the assessable value. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 31-5-2004 in respect of the amount recovered by them from their customers for the period 1997 to 2001. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by original adjudicating authority confirming the duty of Rs. 86,555/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) except that the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 2. We have heard ld. Advocate Shri P.G. Mehta, appearing for the appellants and ld. SDR Shri Sameer Chitkara for the Revenue. Ld. Advocate has challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court cannot be accepted on the mere ground of admittance of appeal. Further, appellant had recovered development charges from their buyers by issuing commercial invoices and no evidence has been brought forward by the appellant at any stage that Deptt. was informed about it. Although, the appellant has been submitting various documents along with RT-12 as per provision of Central Excise law but from that it cannot be said that the Deptt. is informed that appellants are collecting extra amount as development charges from their buyers in routine course of their business activity, particularly when all these transactions are reflected only in appellant s commercial records maintained for their own purpose. From above, I am of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above contention of the appellant. Even if they were under doubt, they should have shown recovery of the said charges in the Central Excise invoices itself instead of raising separate commercial invoices. The fact that such recovery was made by raising separate invoices, which were never placed before the Revenue nor any intimation to the effect was discussed, we are of the view that Bona fide on the part of the appellants is not established and invocation of longer period is justified. We accordingly confirm the duty along with interest. Inasmuch as the penalty has already been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 5,000/-, we do not interfere in the same. In a nutshell, the appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in the Court on 16- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
