9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is equal to the amount of duty not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded. In this case, the net effect of the finalization of the assessment after taking into consideration the value of CFCs and gum tapes would be that the appellant had still paid duty in excess. Therefore, there is no scope for imposing penalty under Sec.11AC because the net differential duty would be negative. The demand is confirmed - penalty set aside - appeal allowed in part. - E/2257/2010 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30890/2018 - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri N. Anand, Representative for the Appellant. Shri Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apes in the data submitted to the department at the time of assessment. They were also asked as to why a penalty should not imposed upon them under Sec.11AC and why the aforesaid amounts of duty and cess should not be appropriated against the excess amounts already paid by them as detailed in the show cause notice. After following due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand and ordered same to be appropriated against the excess amount already paid by them and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,47,879/- under Sec.11AC of Central Excise Act. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed before this Bench aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Learned counsel reiterated the above arguments and prayed that the impugned order be set aside. On specific query from the Bench, learned counsel explained that for subsequent years, they have included the cost of CFCs and gum tapes in the assessable value and thus the department learnt that these elements were not included in the data by then submitted for the previous years at the time of finalisation of assessments. 7. Learned Departmental Representative argued that the appellant had not disclosed full data as required by them at the time of finalization of the provisional assessments. They had submitted CAS-4 certificate from the Chartered Accountant which does not give the details of the inputs included under the head raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of finalization of provisional assessment, the differential duty paid in excess would have been lower than what was indicated above. Therefore, there is no denial that there was short payment on this account while there was excess payment overall during the relevant period. On the question of limitation, we agree with the departmental representative that the appellant has not disclosed full facts and had suppressed the value of these two items in the data provided to the department. However, the appellant has already paid duty in excess of the proposed demand. Therefore, the demand needs to be set off against the excess duty paid, as done by the lower authority. As far as penalty under Sec.11AC is concerned, the penalty which can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
