9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-Original clearly states the analogy which was adopted for quantifying the amount prior to 2011 as stated above. The Department, without reading the order, has filed the appeal in a vague and perverse manner which is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the Department has again failed to give or suggest any other method logically or evidence that the computation made by the commissioner was incorrect or arbitrary. He has adopted a reasonable method for computation. The issue in dispute in appeal is strictly restricted to the period prior to February, 2011 for which the Adjudicating Authority has used the 'analogy to calculate the value of duty leviable on the manufacturing of these 4/5 items prior to February, 2011. The demand in SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by it were completely exempted from the payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification No.10/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. It was only with effect from 01.03.2011, certain goods were made chargeable to duty @ 1% ad valorem under Notification No.01/2011-CE and 2% ad valorem under Notification No.16/2012-CE w.e.f. 17.03.2012, without Cenvat credit facility. Secondly, it was engaged in trading of bought out goods. These goods were directly purchased from unregistered dealers, and for which the Respondent had no manufacturing facility in the factory. Since the purchase is made from unregistered dealers, the Respondent maintains purchase vouchers to account for the goods and the same is also used for the payment of Sales Tax on reverse charge b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. (c) For in period April, 2013 to March, 2014 in addition to point (b) allegation, the show cause notice also proposed that the 'bought out goods, which was only purchased from the unregistered person for trading purposes was alleged to be manufactured in the Respondent factory without any evidence to back its allegation. 2.3 Another SCN dated 24.08.2015 was also issued on the same lines as point (b) that certain goods manufactured by the Respondent do not fall under exemption Notification No.1/2011-CE and Notification No.16/2012-CE. The Respondent contested the allegation imposed and filed a detailed reply as to why the items manufactured by it were correctly classified and are eligible for Notification No.10/2006-CE dated 01.03.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to the conclusion that the Department's allegation is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Hence, such items are not manufactured by the Respondent and the duty demand on this account is not tenable. (c) As the value of items considered misclassified did not available for the period prior to April, 2011, therefore, the value of such items was concluded by determining the ratio of the value of such items out of the total clearance value of the year 2012-13. The value so derived of such items was much less than the limit for SSI exemption and accordingly, no demand was confirmed. (d) For the period subsequent to April, 2011 the actual value of such 4/5 items was computed and duty was assessed/demanded on such value. (e) Upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal and proper for quantifying and confirming the demand. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that whereas it is clearly stated in Para 25 of Order-in-Original that the ratio is being used with respect to the portion of the value of 4/5 items estimated for the period prior to 2011. The language of Para 25 from Order-in-Original is being reproduced below:- 25. For the period prior to 01.03.2011, M/s JST would be liable to pay duty on clearances of four items i.e. Parts of Kitchen/table wares, Toilet Items, SS Box, Sigree/Tandoor and Brass Knobs and all other items will be exempt from duty under Notification No.10/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006. Further, during this period they were eligible for the benefit of SSI exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal clearly states the analogy which was adopted for quantifying the amount prior to 2011 as stated above. The Department, without reading the order, has filed the appeal in a vague and perverse manner which is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the Department has again failed to give or suggest any other method logically or evidence that the computation made by the commissioner was incorrect or arbitrary. He has adopted a reasonable method for computation. 9. Thus, the issue in dispute in appeal is strictly restricted to the period prior to February, 2011 for which the Adjudicating Authority has used the 'analogy to calculate the value of duty leviable on the manufacturing of these 4/5 items prior to February, 2011. The demand in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
