9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearance by unit. Department also alleged that from 1998-99 and continuously thereafter assessee had deliberately undervalued AM blankets in their invoices for all the accounted clearances. The SCNs issued inter alia proposed demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,82,08,410/- with interest liability thereof, confiscation of goods seized and imposition of penalties under various provisions. These proposals were confirmed in the first round of adjudication by the Commissioner vide order dt. 06.10.2003. On appeal by the assessee, Tribunal vide Final Order No.91 to 97/2004 dated 20.1.2004, remanded the appeal to adjudicating authority with directions. 2. In the meantime, on application filed by the respondent-assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-assessee. 7.1 After going through the records of case, what comes to the fore is that the Commissioner in de novo adjudication has followed the directions of Tribunal in the order of remand dt. 20.1.2004. He has taken into consideration the submissions of respondent-assessee that they would be entitled to benefit of Board's Circular No.618/9/2002-CX dt. 13.02.2002 clarifying that when goods are not allowed to be sold, the rate of duty applicable is under main Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under proviso to Section 3 (1) bid. However, adjudicating authority has rejected such a contention and has emphasized that when goods are cleared into DTA from an EOU, taking note of the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected any payment over and above total amount indicated in the price list. Most of the figures are co relatable to payment received in the loose slips found in seized records. Therefore the price be treated as "cum duty price" and the same is liable to be deducted on account of excise duty amount. Assessee relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Sri Chakra Tyres case and Board circular No.803/36/2004-Cx. DT. 27-12-2004 reported in 2005 (179) ELT T-11. The said circular also reads that Review petition of the Dept. against Maruti Udyog Ltd. case has been dismissed and Board has accepted the Apex Court judgement. 58. As already discussed supra, the amounts realized by TSTL either on account of clan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
