9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight for arriving at the value of exempted goods, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the payment of 8% made by the Respondent was with reference to sale value of the bare pipes and coating cost is as per the contract with the party. Hence, he held that the question of payment of 8% amount on the transportation cost would not arise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the demand is clearly time barred on the second issue also. He found that the bare pipes cleared from the factory of the Respondent to the Job worker's premises for coating is in terms of permission granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The sale value (contract price) has been adopted by the Respondent for quantifying the 8% amount for rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 31.10.2006 by the Original Authority who confirmed the demand of 17,43,688/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the Respondent. He also imposed an amount of ₹ 2 Lakhs as penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 2. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Respondent did not follow the correct value of exempted goods for reversing 8% on the same in terms of Rule 6(3)(b). The reversed amount which was collected from the buyer is also to be added while calculating the value for such reversal. On the second issue, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sale on the collection of the 8%, money from the buyers are all in the knowledge of the Department. Hence, we agree with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the point of time bar. Regarding inclusion of freight for arriving at the value of exempted goods, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the payment of 8% made by the Respondent was with reference to sale value of the bare pipes and coating cost is as per the contract with the party. Hence, he held that the question of payment of 8% amount on the transportation cost would not arise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the demand is clearly time barred on the second issue also. He found that the bare pipes cleared from the factory of the Respondent to the Job workers p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
