9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de order-in-appeal No. 122DK(CE)/JPR-I/2010, dated 5-3-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I. The appellant is manufacturer of different grades of paper including Newsprint falling under Heading 48.01 and coated paper falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 48.02 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have factory at SPL-A, RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana Tehsil Kotputalli, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan and another unit at Bahadurgarh (Haryana). During the period from November, 2006 to July, 2007, the appellant cleared base paper which is a kind uncoated paper, to their other unit at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) for use in the manufacture of coated papers and in respect of these clearances made on stock transfer basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 5-3-2010 upheld the Asstt. Commissioner's order. It is against this order that the present appeal and the stay application have been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 2.1 Shri A. Sawant, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the show cause notice dated 9-4-2008 issued for recovery of allegedly short payment of duty in respect of clearances made during the period from November, 2006 to July, 2007 is time barred, as there was no suppression of any facts with intent to evade payment of duty, that the clearances to their unit at Bahadurgarh had been declared in the ER-I Returns filed during this period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the penalty under Section 11AC has been correctly imposed and that in view of this, this is not a fit case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The point of dispute in this case is the assessable value of the base paper cleared by the appellants' factory at RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana, Tehsil-Kotputalli, Distt. Jaipur to their unit at Bahadurgarh in Haryana. The appellant, in respect of these clearances made during the period from November, 2006 to July, 2006, had paid the duty on the normal transaction value, that is transaction value of the goods to other independent buyers, while according to the Department, the duty sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshim Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal-LB) when the duty paid by the appellant in respect of the goods cleared from their factory at RIICO Industrial Area, Keswana, Tehsil-Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan) was available as Cenvat credit to their factory located at Bahadurgarh, Haryana, there could not be any intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of duty. We are, therefore, of the prima facie view that the major part of duty demand is also hit by limitation. 4. In view of the above, we find that there is substance in the appellant's plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. The requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
