9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment in the case of Super Synotex (India) Ltd (2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT). However since on this very issue there were a series of the judgment of the Tribunal which were in the favour of the assessee, the invoking of longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11(A)(1) would not be justified, in view of Apex Court Judgment in the case of continental joint venture vs. CCE, reported in 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) the Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that out of the total duty demand of ₹ 72,23,683/-, the duty demand of about ₹ 32 Lakhs is within time. In view this the appellant are directed to deposit an amount of 32 Lakhs (Thirty Two Lakhs) within a period of 8 weeks - Partial stay granted. - Excise Stay No. E/52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the above mentioned duty demand was confirmed by the Commissioner along with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed. Against this order of the Commissioner this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the amount of sales tax which was retained by the appellant was in lieu of capital subsidy, that earlier the Tribunal, in a series of Judgments Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi-III reported in 2004 (166) ELT-360, Super Synotex (India) Ltd vs. CCE Jaipur, reported in 2003 (160) ELT 59 and Kinetic Engineering Ltd. vs CCE Pune reported in 2012 (283) ELT-229 has held that in such situations where a manufacturer is allowed to recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be includable in the assessable value and its deduction would not be permissible, that this issue now stands decided in the favour of the Revenue by the Apex Courts judgment in the case of CCE Jaipur-II vs Super Synotex (India) (Supra), that the Apex Court Judgment does not make any distinction as to whether the retention of the Sales Tax collected by the manufacturer was in lieu of the capital subsidy or otherwise, and that in view of this, this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 4. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant during the period of dispute were collecting full amount of sales tax from the customers and were payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
