9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) TMI 443 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that the claim that the appellant was having a bona fide belief that the additional discounts are permissible has to be accepted and demand of duty has to be confined to duty within the normal period of limitation. No penalty will be justified - penalty set aside. Demand of interest prior to 11.05.2001 - Held that: - the Tribunal has set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant under the bona fide belief, did not pay Central Excise duty arising out of advance intermediary licence, received from the buyer, considering it not an additional consideration for the purpose of determination of assessable value. This view of the appellant was upheld by the Tribunal in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR-II [2001 (134) ELT 230 (Tri.-K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the lower authorities. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in CCE, Nagpur-I vs. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. reported in 2015 (323) ELT 20 (SC.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that on identical issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) held against the assessee on merit. There is no dispute that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther words, the Tribunal has taken a view that discounts offered to advance licence holders were not additional consideration which decision has been reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the claim that the appellant was having a bona fide belief that the additional discounts are permissible has to be accepted and demand of duty has to be confined to duty within the nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
