9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depot at a value higher than the value on which they have paid the duty. They were also informing the details to the range Superintendent every month. We also note that the appellant-assessee was not even claiming the refund of duty in cases where they had sold the goods at a lower price. Invoking the extended period or imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not correct. However, we note that the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that they are not disputing the duty determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) which they have already paid. - as per definition of place of removal under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, it was factory gate in the facts of present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original authority adjudicated the case and confirmed a demand of ₹ 10,32,451/- along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order, examined the matter and extended the benefit of cum-duty price and also recomputed the duty and as per recomputation, the differential duty of the goods works out to ₹ 2,03,619/-. He reduced the interest and penalty also correspondingly. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, confirmed invocation of extended period of limitation. The appellant-assessee has filed appeal against the said order confirming the demand, interest and penalty. Revenue has also come in appeal against the said order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of time and all the facts were known to the department and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is therefore not sustainable. He further submitted that the Revenues appeal is not maintainable on the limitation as also on merits. He further submitted that the Revenue has demanded the duty on the sale value of the goods from the depot which includes the duty paid by them. Thus, the Revenue is demanding duty twice. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly given the benefit of cum-duty. 3. Learned Superintendent (AR) takes us through the grounds of appeal and submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect as he has not determined the place of removal and thereafter determined the duty. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
