9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable value adopted during certain months resulting in lesser payment of duty, they were paying the differential duty after adjusting the extra payment of duty, if any, during the other months. It is contention of the appellant that if the payment of duty made by the appellant on their own is taken into account, there would be no duty demand. - appellant have taken specific plea that they were preparing annual CAS-4 certificate and were paying the duty on shortfall, if any, after adjusting the excess duty paid by them in some of the months. There is no finding on the above plea of the appellant. If the appellant have actually paid the differential amount of duty, the same would lead to a situation where no duty liability would arise agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was being made good. In this case, the Department determined the assessable value on the basis of annual cost of production based on CAS-4 format and compared the same with the assessable value adopted for each month and in whichever month, lesser value had been adopted resulting in lesser payment of duty, differential duty has been demanded. It is on this basis that that the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 7.7.2014 has confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 3,18,51,841/- against the appellant along with interest and has imposed equal amount of penalty on them under Section 11 AC. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Though the matter was listed only for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation on the part of the appellant and in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, he stated that he has no objection if this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The duty demand is in respect of the clearance made by the appellant to the manufacturing unit at Baddi, in respect of which the assessable value is required to be determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e. 110% of the cost of production. The appellant had adopted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty, the same would lead to a situation where no duty liability would arise against the assessee. In view of this, this matter has also to be remanded to the Commissioner with the same directions. 7. Besides this, in this case, we also find that while the period of dispute is 2011-2012, the show cause notice has been issued only on 8.11.2013, i.e. beyond the period of normal limitation period, while the appellant s plea is that the allegation of suppression of relevant facts could not be made, as on the basis of the same facts, earlier, a show cause notice for the period 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 has been issued and there were bona fide reasons for delay in furnishing the required information. The Appellant also cited the judgement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
