9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. R.S. Sharma Sh. Vivek Kumar, Advocates for the Appellant Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR, for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Forza Medi India Pvt. Ltd. is a 100% Export Oriented Unit having Customs bonded warehouse and Central Excise registration for the manufacture of Wheel Chair Components falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 87131010 87142020 of Central Excise Tariff. The noticee is importing duty free Aluminum Sections/Tubes in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dt. 31.03.2003 and procuring duty free inputs i.e. M.S. Tubes indigenously in terms of Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported duty free in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dt. 31.03.2013 by mis-declaring the value of the scrapt cleared during the period May, 2009 to November, 2013. (b) Similarly, the appellant had made short payment of duty (i.e. duty foregone) amounting to ₹ 10,30,790/- on sale of scrap arisen out of M.S. Tubes procured duty free in terms of Notification No. 22/2003-CE dt. 31.03.2013 by mis-declaring the value of the scrap cleared during the period May, 2009 to November, 2013. Revenue felt that in the case where generation of scrap is more than that permitted in SION (nil in the instant case) then the appellant was required to discharge their duty liability on sale of such quantity of scrap equal to the amount of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Mining Vs. Sunil S/o Pundikaro Pathak - (2006) 5 SCC 96. Further, in the same judgment, the Hon ble Court had held that in the case of Hartman Vs. Honsby (142 MO 368, 44 SW 242, 244) ratification was succinctly define by the English Court. He contended that due to mis-interpretation of word ratify, the Ld. Commissioner had wrongly confirmed the demand. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of the adjudicating authority and supported the adjudication order. 5. Heard the parties and examined the records. 6. We find that the dispute essentially emanates from the alleged higher percentage of scrap in the manufacturing process of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the ground that it was not stated specifically in the said letter that the impugned norms have been fixed by said office with retrospective effect. We find that Commissioner has clearly fallen into an error while analyzing the letter dt. 16.04.2015, which is reproduced below:- 8. It is clear from the decision of the committee that it decided to ratify the norms for the items manufactured by the assessee. It is also noted in said letter that the norms were also supported by actual consumption/scrap data. We find force in the contention of Ld. Advocate that the ratification of the norms as mentioned in the decision has to be read in terms of interpretation given by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
