9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department had not raised the allegation of extended period of limitation. It is only in the corrigendum issued to the said SCN that they have invoked proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1994 for the period 1.3.2006 to 10.10.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore rightly concluded that as the dispute was already in the domain of the department, the of allegation of suppre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No.22/2006 dt. 1.3.2006 vide Sl.No.2 for the clearances made to their sister units in DTA during the period from 1.3.2006 to 30.09.2006. The respondents had paid the duty based on their own ascertainment i.e. calculating on the assessable value that had been adopted for the clearances made to their sister DTA units at the time of clearance. Though respondents paid the Additional Duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the demand both on merits as well as on the grounds of limitation. Hence the department is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 Ld. A.R Ms. Usha Devi argued the matter both on merits as well as on limitation. She submitted that the Commissioner (appeals) has erred in setting aside the demand on merits. The proviso to Notification No.23/2003-CE amended by Notification No.22/2006 says that SAD shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id value was enhanced / re-determined by OIO dt. 28.9.2007 and therefore the respondents are liable to pay the differential duty for the enhanced value which comes to ₹ 45,24,413/-. 2.2 She argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the demand on time bar aspect also for the reason that the duty was paid on the assessable value that was adopted by their own ascertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 to 10.10.2006. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore rightly concluded that as the dispute was already in the domain of the department, the of allegation of suppression cannot be fastened on the respondents. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the demand made in the SCN for the same period is hit by time-bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
