9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom November, 90 to September, 95, while they were collecting an amount representing sales tax from their customers, they were not paying any tax to the Sales Tax Department and as such, were retaining the same and at the same time, they were claiming deduction of the 'sales tax' for determining their assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the appellant were not paying any sales tax, the department was of the view that they were not eligible for deduction of the sales tax for determining their assessable value. It is on this basis that a show cause notice, dated 28-11-1995 were issued to the respondent for recovery of allegedly short paid duty amounting to Rs. 16,49,851/- for the period from November 1990 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal's order, the dispute was to be adjudicated de novo for the period from 17-7-1991 to 8-3-1994. 1.3 The de novo adjudication was done, by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida vide order-in-original dated 25-10-2004 by which the Commissioner while giving finding that the assessments were provisional during the period from 17-7-1991 to 8-3-1994 only due to non-availability of the quantum of deduction towards freight, and insurance on equalized basis, the deduction of sales tax for determining the assessable value was not an issue and that the Asstt. Commissioner while finalizing the provisional assessment had not at all taken up the issue of deduction of sales tax, still did not confirm the differential duty demand but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax exemption but they were still collecting an amount representing sales tax from their customers, that in view of this, they were not eligible for deduction of sales tax for determining the assessable value, that in this regard, she relies upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE v. Super Synotex (I) Ltd. reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) and that in view of this, the impugned order, which has not confirmed the demand for the duty short paid on account of wrong deduction of sales tax, is not correct. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. For the period from 17-7-1991 to 8-3-1994, there is no dispute that the respondents were enjoying sales tax exemption and as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
