9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration received towards collection charges - audit of appellant was conducted in 9/2003 and audit note also is issued on 31.01.2005 - Held that:- the quantifying the collection charges collected in 2003-04 and having directed JRO to verify the issue in detail and take necessary action to safeguard the revenue, department cannot then take its own sweet time to issue notice on 29.09.2007 i.e., after a lapse of more than four years of the audit. Therefore, the appellant does have a case on the issue of limitation, and that SCN and hence the demand revised in the impugned order is time barred except for the normal period of demand immediately preceding the date of service of Show Cause Notice. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 is also set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants to discharge the interest on the amount deposited by them. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2007, inter alia, demanding differential duty of ₹ 2,72,507/- on the ground that though the appellants have received an additional consideration amounting to ₹ 58,54,151/-, however, they have discharged duty liability only on ₹ 41,17,675/-. On this ground, recovery was proposed to demand differential duty payable by the appellant with respect to additional consideration received towards collection charges during the period from September 2002 to March 2007. b. Adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 06.02.2008, confirming the proposals in the SCN. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04-05 Collection Charges 9,05,065 - 9,05,065 1,44,810 2896 4 2004-05 Weighment difference 11930 - 11930 1909 38 5 2005- 2006-07 Rate Difference 1,17,687 - 1,17,687 18830 377 Total 58,54,151 41,71,675 16,82,476 2,69, 196 3,311 6. The addition of collection charges, weighment difference and rate difference are very much in the nature of additional consideration and hence required to be included in the assesable value for the discharge of excise duty. 7. Coming to limitation, the audit of appellant was conducted in 9/2003 and audit note also is issued on 31.01.2005. The quantifying the collection charges collected in 2003-04 as amounting to ₹ 31,69,437/- and having directed JRO to verify the issue in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
