9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued that had attained finality by dropping the demand by the CESTAT on 11.01.2018, the other show-cause notice was pursued and adjudication order was passed subsequent thereto. It seems that ignoring all legal provisions including the constitutional right of protection against double jeopardy that is being tried repeatedly for the same act of alleged omission despite a clear finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Osaka Alloys And Steels Pvt. Ltd. [ 2007 (9) TMI 615 - SC ORDER ] that even without adjudication of the first show-cause notice, issue of second show-cause notice raising the demand is without jurisdiction, besides being time barred and in LUPIN LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2012 (6) TMI 785 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant manufactures Yeast and clears the same from its factory gate as well as from depots upon payment of applicable excise duty. Department s case is that Appellant had adopted incorrect valuation for goods cleared to its depot on normal transaction value which should have been cleared on the latest aggregate quantity of goods sold as against the price at which most number of goods were sold and thereby violated Rule, 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 describes above. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the issue is no more res integra, in view of pronouncement of several decisions by this Tribunal which have also b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. reported in 2007 (211) ELT 543 (P H) and in Lupin Ltd. judgment reported in 2013 (293) ELT 354 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department has argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2002 to justify that price of greatest aggregate quantity is to be taken for which no error can be noticeable in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). He further placed his reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal passed in the case of E.I. DU Pont India Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Osaka Alloys And Steels Pvt. Ltd. cited supra that even without adjudication of the first show-cause notice, issue of second show-cause notice raising the demand is without jurisdiction, besides being time barred and in Lupin Ltd. case cited supra it was also held that issue of another show-cause notice without any new material would be wholly futile and prejudicial to the Assessee and would be an abuse of the process of law. In carrying forward the judicial precedent set on the issue, the following order is passed. THE ORDER 6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune vide Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-013 to 14/2020-21 dated 29.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
