9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, some of the goods were being sold from their depot at a value which was either higher or lower than the value at which the goods were originally traded from the factory. Thereafter they were paying on monthly basis the differential excise duty corresponding to the goods which were sold at a value higher than the factory gate value. The period of dispute is from April 1999 to March 2003. A show cause notice was issued to them on 5.3.2004 invoking the extended period of limitation and demanding differential duty. The differential duty was demanded mainly on two grounds. The first was that once the goods are sold at a value higher than the factory value, thus the SSI slab changes and hence the appellant-assessee was to pay a higher du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that they are not disputing the duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, they are disputing the penalty imposed under Section 11AC as the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was his submission that right from 1999 onwards, the appellant-assessee themselves were computing the differential duty on the goods sold at a value higher than the value at which they have paid the duty at the time of clearance from the factory. The details were being informed to the range Superintendent every month. In fact, they were not even claiming the refund of duty on the goods wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue 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. 5. Keeping in view these facts, in our considered view, 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. 6. We also note that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
