9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liability of duty of the period of 1996-97, 1997-98 ie., for the period prior to 11.5.2001 ie., which is, thus, before enactment of Finance Bill 2001. The matter is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for requantification of liability of duty against the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/262/2008 - A/11007/2017 - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Dr D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Shri Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) For Applicant(s): Shri S R Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s): Shri S N Gohil, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Shri Ashok K Arya M/s Gandhilon Texturisers is in appeal against OIA-KLG/209/SRT-II/07 dt 29.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat II where under, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to the benefit of cum duty price for computation of liability of duty as there cannot be any further collection from the customer on account of the sale for which payments have already been realised by the assessee. 4.2 In this regard, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd (supra) observes as under: 4. Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act , 1944 provides for valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. Under Section 4(1), the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to the value which is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade where the buyer is not a related per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale transaction was completed, the purchaser was under no obligation to pay any extra amount to the seller, namely, the respondent. In such a transaction, it is the seller who takes on the obligation of paying all taxes on the goods sold and in such a case the said taxes on the goods sold are to be deducted under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) and this is precisely what has been directed by the Tribunal. There is also nothing to show that the sale price was not cum-duty. 6. It will be useful here to refer to the observations of this Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1978] 4 SCC 271 , at page 280, as follows: Take for example, excise duty payable by a dealer who is a manufacturer. When he sells goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt who has, by necessary implication, taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold and has not sought to realise any sum in addition to the price obtained by it from the purchaser. The purchaser was under no obligation to pay any amount in excess of what had already been paid as the price of the scarp. 5. The appellant pleads that there cannot be any liability of interest on the duty sustained against them as the period involved is 1996-97, 1997-1998 and there is no suppression of facts etc. As the present facts are covered by the Tribunal order in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs Scorpio Engg Pvt Ltd 2016 (322) ELT. 667 (Kar.) the liability of interest on delayed payment of duty, which is due before the enactment of Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
