9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of duty paid under Section 4A have been sanctioned in terms of Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, which were never challenged and had attained finality - HELD THAT:- It is found that, as held in the decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VERSUS M/S. JELLALPORE TEA ESTATE [ 2011 (3) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ], the Revenue could not have raised the demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without challenging the refund sanctioning orders. As it has been clarified that appellants are required to pay duty on MRP basis and they are entitled to avail abatement vide Notification No. 14/2008-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008, in that circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invokable as the date and metho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a for Pan i.e., Mouth Fresheners and Sweet Supari , which they have been manufacturing the above mentioned products since 30th November, 2006 and 26th July, 2006 respectively and registered with the Central Excise Department. 2.1. The appellant no. 3 (M/s. Valley Products) is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of selling Sweet Supari. The said Sweet Supari was purchased from appellant no. 1 in unit packs, relabelled the original packet by simply replacing the original sticker of packet with their own stickers bearing name Valley and thereafter, the appellant no. 3 has sold the product to appellant no. 2 by discharging Central Excise duty by claiming that the activity of re-labelling amounted to manufacture and also obtained Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncessional Notification No. 32/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 (Area Based Exemption Notification), wherein whatever duty is paid through PLA, is entitled as refund to the appellants; during the impugned period, all the refund claims were sanctioned to the appellants after examination of the records. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants contended that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 4.2. He further submitted that in case of appellant no. 1, it was intimated by the Department vide letter dated 18.07.2008 that the appellant was required to pay duty on MRP basis and they were entitled to avail abatement as laid down vide Notification No. 14/2008-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008; that all the appellants referred to the Superintend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng orders. 7.1. Further, we find that a clarification was sought from the Department before commencement of production, which was clarified by the Superintendent. For better appreciation of the facts, the clarification of the Superintendent is extracted hereinbelow : - 9. As it has been clarified that appellants are required to pay duty on MRP basis and they are entitled to avail abatement vide Notification No. 14/2008-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008, in that circumstances, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable as the date and method of payment of duty was known to the Department and appellants have paid duty as per the clarification given by the Department. 9.1 We also find that periodic audit had been conducted at the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
