9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent to their refining unit in Jharkhand where the Anode Slime was being further processed for the extraction of silver. Since the Anode Slime is a by-product and its cost of production could not be determined on the basis of CAS-IV standard, Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 could not be invoked. The assessing officer, therefore determined the value of Anode Slime cleared to Jharkhand Unit under Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules by best judgment method and accordingly the value of Anode Slime was determined on the basis of the value of its silver content. However, the respondent while determining the value of Anode Slime in this manner, also deducted the element of duty on silver. The Department, however, was of the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice had been issued to them well in time. In view of this, in accordance with the Rule 21 of the procedure Rules so far as respondents are concerned, the matter is being decided ex-parte. 5. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the ld. DR assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenues appeal and pleaded that when during the period of dispute, the excise duty on silver was fully exempted, while determining the value of silver content in Anode Slime the excise duty was not required to be abated. He also pleaded that the setting aside of the duty demand by the Commissioner (appeals) on the ground of Revenues neutrality is also not correct. He also pleaded that since in the present case, the dispute is about the value of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 11AC are attracted. When with regard to the penal provisions of section 11AC, the Assistant Commissioner has given a finding that he does not find any evidence of wilful mis-statement, fraud or collusion on the part of the assessee etc. and for this reason, he has not imposed any penalty on the assessee under section 11AC, he cannot confirm the demand beyond the normal limitation period by invoking proviso to section 11AC. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that duty demand is time barred and hence, the order of the Commissioner (appeals) setting aside the demand cannot be found fault with. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
