9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the price at which the goods were sold at the factory gate when the clearances took place under the Central Excise gate passes. The penalty amount which has been paid by the appellant during the relevant period was not claimed as deductions from the price-lists filed by the appellant nor was it mentioned to the lower authorities in any form. Accordingly, we find that the appellant's claim that the amount which has been deducted from their account by the buyers for its delay in execution in contracts is not correct and the proposition needs to be rejected. In the case in hand, the period being prior to the concept of transaction value, normal price needs to be arrived based upon the declarations made by the assessee. In this case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r being eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption Notification 175/86. In our considered view, we find that the issue being a calculation error, attributable to human error and accordingly it is held penalty imposed on the appellant is unwarranted. The penalty as imposed is set aside. In sum, the demand of Central Excise duty along with interest is upheld and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is set aside. - Appeal No. E/776/2005 - Final Order No. A/3782/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 3-12-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Anjali Hirawat, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the appellant would take us through the entire records and submit that the only issue that needs consideration is whether the appellant is correct in computing the value of clearances for the year 1989-90. It is her submission that the threshold value of ₹ 2 crore was not exceeded by the appellant. She would submit that the lower authorities have incorrectly applied insurance and the freight expenses which have been recovered by the appellant. It is her submission that the amount which has been considered by the lower authorities is incorrect and freight amount of ₹ 3,10,877/- was not considered and if that amount was considered the clearance value of the appellant would be less than ₹ 2 crore. She would then t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submit that the adjudicating authority has correctly extended the benefits which are applicable to them as per the order-in-original. He would submit that, in respect of computation of value, what is actually charged by the appellant from the buyers as per the bills and invoices which would matter for the purpose of computing the aggregate value and what they do not get. It is also his submission that freight and insurance charges are correctly calculated based upon the documents and the balance sheets produced by the appellant. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The only issue involved in this case is whether the appellant has exceeded the turn-over of ₹ 2 crore in the year 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned counsel in the case of Victory Electricals Ltd. (Larger Bench decision) (supra) is in respect of the transactions post July 2000 wherein the concept of transaction value was brought into picture for discharge of excise duty. In the case in hand, the period being prior to the concept of transaction value, normal price needs to be arrived based upon the declarations made by the assessee. In this case, there was no such declaration as to claim the deduction of an amount deducted to their account as penalty by the buyers for the delayed execution of contracts. 7. As regards freight and insurance, we find that the adjudicating authority has correctly come to the conclusion that the actual amount of freight paid by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
