9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abhijit Biswas, Nihar Dasgupta, Advocates, S.P.Siddhanta, B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultants for the Appellant (s) S/Shri A.Roy, S.Mukhopadhyay, S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.s(AR) for the Revenue MA(COD)76072/17, E/75571, 75621, 75641, 75664, 75665, 75666, 75667, 75668, 75669, 75671, 75676, 75681, 75682, 75683, 75687, 75698, 75787, 76010, 76025, 76104/2015, E/75294, 75393, 75395, 75466, 75484, 75512, 75578, 76061, 76063, 76174, 76175, 76176, 76183, 76211, 76369, 76459, 76501, 76502, 76503, 76504, 76505, 76506, 76550, 76559, 76588, 76589, 76590, 76591, 76778, 76779, 76815, 76816, 76888, 76899, 76900, 76901, 77025, 77026, 77061, 77062, 77063/2016, E/75065, 75120, 75411, 75561, 75583, 75626, 76252, 76399, 76439, 76458, 76459, 76479, 76670, 76709, 76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries M/s.Trident Plastic M/s.Arunachal Carbon Industries M/s.J.K.Associates M/s.Melet Schloesing Laboratories India M/s.Dyna Roof Pvt.Ltd. M/s.Dyna Roof Pvt.Ltd. M/s.S.M.Polypack Industries M/s.Khasi Alloys Pvt.LTd. M/s.Kamakhya Poles M/s.Green Power Solutions M/s.Nalari Ferro Alloys Pvt.Ltd. M/s.Kamakhya Transformers M/s.Megha Mouldings M/s.Mega Alloys M/s.Poddar Rubber Industries M/s.Meghalaya Mineral Products M/s.Shree Mahabir Industries M/s.B.N.Fabricators M/s.Magnum Industries M/s.Magnum Industries Unit-II M/s.Manjushree Packaging M/s.Star Cement Meghalaya Ltd. M/s.P.D.Pipe M/s.Keshri Hi Tech Packaging M/s.Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. M/s.Polymet Industries M/s.Assorted Plastic Unit-II Per Shri Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra. All the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclude the value of the retained sale/tax/VAT. 5. Being aggrieved all the appellants have filed the present appeals. 6. With this background we have heard S/Shri D.Sahu, Advocate, Mrs. Raginee Goyal, C.A., Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate, S.P.Majumdar, S.Banerjee, Abhijit Biswas, Nihar Dasgupta, Advocates, S.P.Siddhanta, B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultants for the Appellants and S/Shri A.Roy, S.Mukhopadhyay, S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.s(AR) for the Revenue. 7. In some cases, it is claimed that the matter is time barred and they took the plea that the extended period is wrongly extended. After hearing the rival submissions, we re-concur with the finding of the Commissioner regarding the extended period and uphold the findings of the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of facts. Revenue neutrality has also been pleaded since any differential duty paid will also be entitled to grant of refund. 11. Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Counsel submitted that after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. M/s.Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Others [2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX], the Appellant M/s.Star Cement Meghalaya Ltd. (Appeal No.E/76670/2017) has deposited the Central Excise duty and claimed the refund which was granted. After granting the refund, again a show cause notice was issued. It is the submission of the ld.Counsel that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant. 12. At the same time Miss Raginee Goel, C.A. submits on behalf of Appellant M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. M/s.Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & Others [2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX] observed that any amount retained by the assessee out of VAT/Sale Tax collected had to be treated as part of the price of goods under basic fundamental construction of the transaction value w.e.f. 01.07.2000. The ld.DRs submit that when 99% of the VAT collected is retained by the appellants then the same will be liable to be added to the transaction value of the goods. They have also relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases :- (1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2014 (307) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)] (2) Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without examining the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex (supra). Short-cut method has been adopted. 19. Needless to mention that as per Article 14 of the Constitution, similar matter will have to be decided in a manner of alike. 20. Hence, for maintaining uniformity and consistency in the law, it is expected that all the appeals will have to be decided in a similar manner which is lacking in the present case. When it is so then we set aside all the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issues de novo, but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellants. Fresh evidence, if need be, may be admitted as per law. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
