9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is engaged in the manufacture of "Parts of Lifts" which is used by them and discharging the excise duty thereon under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In respect of goods cleared during the period 2006-07 they paid duty on the basis of costing of the goods which was during the preceding financial year i.e. 2005-06 and had not paid differential duty as per the costing for the current year i.e. 2006-07. Later, to arrive at the correct value of the excisable goods, the appellant calculated the cost as per CAS-4 certificate and it was noticed that there is differential duty of Rs. 21,65,393/- BED and Rs. 48,860/- Education Cess and there is excess payment of Central excise duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant submits that the appellant time and again requesting the department for their option of provisional assessment as per Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In this regard she referred to letter submitted to Department by them on 28/8/2006, as per the said letter it is the appellant, who informed the department their intention to opt for the provisional assessment. She further submits that since the duty was being paid on the value arrived at cost construction method, they were discharging the duty liability on the provisional value at the time of clearance, subsequently, on finalization of accounts differential duty was being paid every year. She submits that they paid the duty for the period 2005-06 in the year 2006 on the basis of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice was correctly issued invoking the extended period. He relied on following judgments: (a) Metal Forgings Vs Union of India [2002 (146) ELT 241 (S.C.)] (b) C.C. Ex. Belgaum Vs. Mukund Ltd [2009 (239) ELT 132 (Tri. Bang.)] (c) Bansali Engg. Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal [2000 (121) ELT 280 (Tri.)] (d) J.K. Cotton Spg. Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collr. Of Central Excise [1998 (99) ELT 8 (S.C.)] (e) Commr. of C. Ex. Culcutta Vs. Hindustan National Glass & Indus Ltd. [2005 (182) ELT 12 (S.C.)] (f) Modipon Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2004 (174) ELT 126 (Tri. Del)] (g) Sara Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2005 (188) ELT 398 (Tri. Del.)] (h) J.K. Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for that reason appellant have not paid the differential duty. However on pointed out by the audit team, the appellant have discharged the differential duty of bonfide belief that excess paid duty can be adjusted against short paid duty, difference is the amount for which the show cause notice was issued. It is pertinent to mention that demand of show cause notice arises from differential duty paid by the appellant, in such case department could have issued the show cause notice within one year from the date of payment of differential duty i.e. from September, 2007. However, the show cause notice issued was after almost two years from the date of payment of differential duty. In my view, even the payment of differential duty was made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
