2012 (7) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t a case in his favour on the point of limitation as non-declaration of collection of charges of DPS in RT 12 should not be held against them, as they could entertained a bonafide belief, as it is done only in respect of few customers.
Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri S.J. Vyas, Adv.: for Assessee. Shri S.K. Mall, A.R.: for the Revenue. Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.192/2006(Ahd-II)CE/Raju/Comr(A), dt.22.6.06. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of LPG Compressors and CNG Compressor and spares thereof falling under Chapter 84, 64, 74 and 76 of the First Schedule to Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing the CENVAT Cre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mount of Rs.12,00,000/- charged under invoice No.A-03001, dt.31.5.2000 under Section 11A(1) OF Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of 5 years along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Act. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, wherein he confirmed the Central Excise duty of Rs.1,92,000/- on amount of Rs.12,00,000/- charged under invoice No.A-03001 dt.31.05.2000 under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of 5 years along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty of Rs.1,92,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... information was upon such bonafide belief. It is his submission that the entire demand is hit by limitation as the Show Cause Notice dt.27.12.2004 was issued for the demand of duty liability for the month of May 2000. 5. Ld.SDR, on the other hand, would submit that both the lower authorities have shown the co-relation of the Digital and Pulsation Study performed and the value needs to be included which is evident from the fact that the appellant themselves have subsequently included the value of the Digital and Pulsation Study in the assessable value. It is his submission that for this particular period i.e. May 2000, the appellant is not including the value of Digital and Pulsation Study into the assessable value. 6. We have considere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X