9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty can be imposed on the Appellant. In addition to that in Appeal No. E/27329/2013, Appellant is claiming that the demand is barred by limitation. The Appellant is also claiming reduction of the demand of the duty by extending the benefit of cum duty. 2. The Appellant is engaged in offset printing and also manufacturing certain excisable goods. Among them the Appellant is manufacturing printed paper tags falling under Chapter Heading 4821 10 10. The said goods were subject to nil rate of duty as per the Notification No. 10/2003 dated 01.03.2003. Thereafter, as per the Notification No. 10/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, it was subject to levy of 8% and thereafter the Appellant was paying said excise duty at the rate of 8%. Thereafter, the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 was filed by the Appellant on 09.06.2010, whereas the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was received by the Appellant only on 10.06.2011 and it is time barred. The Appellant further submits that the Original Authority has deviated from the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in serving the SCN to them as the first mode of service is by tendering the document or by sending it by registered post, if only when the said mode fails, then only the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37C could have been invoked. Though it is claimed that the SCN was sent on 09.06.2011 by registered post same was received by the Appellant on 10.06.2011 and due to failure of the Respondent to comply with the service of the notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable by the appellant was calculated and appellant has paid the same immediately on receipt of the SCN. 5. Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that as regards duty liability, appellant accepted their omission in the paying duty. However, they are aggrieved only on denial of the benefit of price cum duty. As per the appellate authority, it is denied since the appellant has not followed the price cum duty procedure, while declaring their goods during the period covered by the SCN's. Facts being so, the Adjudication authority rightly considered the issue and duty was confirmed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find that it is an admitted fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to terms of sale of the goods. If any further demand of duty is created against an assessee and such further demand of duty cannot be passed on to a customer in view of the terms of sale of any goods between the assessee and a customer, the original consideration (including duty, if any) received by an assessee for sale of the goods in wholesale trade, has to be taken as cum-duty price for the purpose of demand of higher duty subsequently. Any hypothetical consideration that the sale price would have gone up had correct duty been paid in the first instance cannot, in our opinion, be made the basis for non-abatement of differential duty from the realised sale price. We have to take into account the facts as they are, not what they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
