9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and aggregate value of clearances was calculated accordingly. Department took the view that the goods "food supplements" are assessable to Central Excise duty under Section 4A of the Act based on M.R.P. It also appeared to the department that since clearances are required to be effected under Section 4A assessment, aggregate value of clearances would exceed Rs. 100 lakhs, and hence duty would be required to be paid beyond that limit. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 12.06.2007 was issued to appellant, inter alia proposing demand of an amount of Rs. 14,02,162/- with interest thereon and imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. The amount paid up by appellant in the course of investigation was also sought to be appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They were only a small scale unit who were clearing the goods on the genuine premise that the goods were not required to be brought under M.R.P. assessment. They were not indicating any classification in the invoices or other documents issued by them. 3. On the other hand, ld. A.R supports the impugned order. He points out that the first part of the show cause notice itself does indicate that the goods are being covered under Chapter 21 of CETA. He submits that for deciding whether the goods do fall under M.R.P. valuation, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to determine the classification. This was all the more important since there was major change in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act w.e.f. 1.3.2005, when 8-digit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t find any infirmity in the conclusions of the lower appellate authority that the original authority has not travelled beyond the scope of SCN as alleged by the appellant. The prayer of the appellant with regard to setting aside of the duty demand will therefore fail and is rejected. Accordingly, duty demand and interest liability is upheld. 6. However, coming to the issue of penalty, we find that the entire dispute was one of interpretation. It is also to be kept in mind that assessee was a SSI unit and may not have been in the know of things. It is also not alleged that they had removed any part or whole of the goods in a clandestine manner. Further, that on being pointed out, except for the interest portion, the appellants have paid up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
