Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the duty payable by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/3294/2006-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER No.70878/2016 - Dated:- 7-6-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Aalok Arora, Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri V.R. Reddy Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Department Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar: The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No.197-CE/MRT-I/2005 dated 28.11.2005 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise, Meerut. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Inverted Syrup and edible preparations not elsewhere specified falling under chapter heading 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .47/AC/MZN-II/04 dated 21.09.2004. The original authority confirmed and appropriated ₹ 528/-, 1,18,891, 4,890/- ₹ 3,187/-. Further, the original Authority has held that the appellant had realized handling, forwarding and packing charges from various companies and the said amount was not included in the assessable value and those packing were not in the nature of special packing but were general packing. Therefore, on the amount of ₹ 4,75,899/- recovered for the period from 1998-99 to 2001-02 realized on account of such packing, Central Excise duty of ₹ 76,144/- was confirmed by the original authority and original authority imposed penalty of ₹ 1,98,750/- on the appellant under Rules 173 Q of Central Excise Ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctory and there were no allegations of clandestine removal, therefore, the penalty was not justified. 6. The Ld. DR for Revenue has supported the impugned Order-in- Appeal. 7. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions. Prior to 01.07.2000, the amount recovered on durable and returnable packing was deductable from value. Therefore, we modify the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.11.2005 to the extent that on reconsideration, original Authority shall not impose any penalty and Original authority shall allow the deduction of amount recovered by the appellant towards durable and returnable packing for the period upto 01.07.2000 and as directed by first appellate authority also examine the issue of extending the benefits of SSI exempti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates