9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove and in view of the fact that the appellant had maintained the proper records to demonstrate that the goods in question were manufactured prior to 09.07.2004, the confirmation of demand on Education Cess along with interest and imposition of penalty on the appellant is not legally sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/922/2009-EX[SM] - Final Order No.50223/2016 - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. LP Asthana, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. RK Gupta, DR ORDER PER MR. S.K. MOHANTY : This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.01.2009 passed by CCEST, Allahabad confirming demand of education cess amounting to ₹ 45,68,650/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were produced during the course of adjudication. He further submitted that since the documents recorded were not produced before the audit wing, the same were not accepted by adjudicating authority, i.e., the Commissioner and the duty demand was confirmed holding that the goods were manufactured prior to introduction of levy of education cess on 09.07.2004. 4. On the other hand, Shri RK Gupta, ld. Departmental Representative for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard the ld. counsels and perused the records. 6. I find from the available records that the appellant in the reply to the Show Cause Notice has categorically stated that the disputed goods cleared during the period from 09.07.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy and collection of the Education Cess at appropriate rate was provided for by the clause 81 read with clauses 83 and 84 of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2004 (22 of 2004) with immediate effect, i.e., with effect from 9.07.2004, owing to a declaration to this effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. 7. Ignoring the submissions of the appellant and the documents produced during the adjudication proceedings, the CCE, has confirmed the demand solely on the ground that the said documents were not produced before the audit wing. Since, the appellant had maintained adequate records to show that the goods removed during 09.07.2004 to 31.07.2004 are out of stock of goods manufactured prior to 09.04.2004, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
