9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Goods) Rules, 2000, Rules 4, 6, 8 and 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In view of the settled decision of law and the judgment of this Tribunal in MM Cylinders [ 2011 (9) TMI 779 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] being confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court in MM Cylinders Vs C [ 2012 (1) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , where it was held that ' The mere fact that the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise might be aware that the SMT has been used for transport of goods and freight was claimed as abatement may not lead to any conclusion to say that the department was aware of intricate manipulation by the appellant-company'. The appeal is dismissed. - HON BLE Mr. ANIL CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Mr. A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bruary 2015 2,78,927 25000 E/30900/2018 March 2015 to January 2016 66,993 6,000 E/30901/2018 July 2013 to March 2014 1,48,790 74,395 3. The appellants manufacture LPG cylinders of various sizes falling under central excise tariff heading/sub-heading no. 7311 00 10. As per the sale agreements entered into with their customers, viz., M/s Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the appellants have to deliver the final products on the basis of gross delivery price/net delivery price i.e., inclusive of all taxes excise duty and the freight charges. To deliver their final products on the basis of Gross Delivery Price/Net Delivery Price (herein after referred to as GDP/NDP) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002 necessitating recovery measures of duty short paid by invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1994. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for an amount of Rs. 31,966/- being differential duty liability for inflated freight charges during the period 12/2011 to 07/2012 under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Further, penalties have been imposed against i) Shri M. Muriganandam, MD of M/s GDR Cylinders Pvt Ltd., ii) Shri R. Ravi Verma, Director of M/s GDR Cylinders Pvt Ltd., iii) Shri M.P. Krishnamachari, GM of M/s GDR Cylinders Pvt Ltd., iv) M/s Sri Mehala Transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court below have assumed the freight charges shown have been inflated willingly with intention to deflate/reduce assessable value for the purpose of excise duty. The same is lower than those claimed by the appellant. The appellant have relied on the precedent ruling in SnH Steels Vs CC [2017 (358) ELT 1070 (Tri-Chandigarh)]. It is further urges that for argument sake even, for the allegation of Revenue that appellant has inflated freight charges, Revenue does not have to take adverse view as freight charges are also liable for service tax under GTA Service and appellant is entitled to credit of same as input tax and hence situation is revenue neutral. It is further urged that the demand is based on assumptions and presumptions and is fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
