9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1985. During the course of manufacture of cement, slag is generated, which is classifiable under Sub-heading 2618.00 of CETA, 1985, but the said slag was sold as is where is basis to M/s ACC Ltd. A show-cause notice was issued on 09.12.2003 alleging short payment of duty on account of under-valuation of goods inasmuch as, they have not included railways freight, and also handling charges, paid by M/s ACC Ltd. to a third party namely, M/s Suraj Logistics, in the value of the slag for the period from December, 2002 to February, 2003. The Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand relating to railways freight, but confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,11,032/- on handling charges ; also imposed equivalent penalty of Rs. 4,11,032/- under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as advised by the Department, they have paid the entire amount of duty and also later paid the interest. It is his submission that at the relevant point of time, the position of law was not clear, as to whether the handling charges paid to third party, would be included in the assessable value, when the product cleared from the factory, as is where is basis. He submitted that the said issue has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai III Vs. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. : 2009 (240) ELT 38 (Tri.-LB). It is his submission that as per the ratio of the said judgement and in view of the Contract between the Appellant and M/s ACC Ltd., the handling charges incurred in transporting slag by M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he burden of such expenses was not borne by them. In the present case, undisputedly, the expenses of handling charges were paid by M/s ACC Ltd. to M/s Suraj Logistics and such expenses were not borne by the Appellant. Besides, we find that the demand notice is issued for normal period of limitation and we do not find any materials adduced by the Revenue that the duty has not been paid on account of suppression of facts, mis-declaration etc.. On the contrary, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in case of Supreme Petrochem Ltd. (cited supra), the Appellant is not required to discharge any duty. In these circumstances, we are of the view that penalty is not warranted under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
