9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer on one side and the oil companies on the other. In terms of those contracts, the goods were sent by the manufacturer by road for delivery at the buyer's premises. Cylinders so sold by road were insured by the manufacturer in their own name, the freight charges were reimbursed. For the purpose of paying duty on cylinders, the freight and insurance charges realised from oil companies were not added. Consequently, Show Cause Notices were issued demanding differential duty reckoning the freight and insurance charges which should have been added to the value of the cylinders. Differential duty so claimed was in relation to the cylinders cleared for the period from 28-9-1996 to 31-3-1998. The amount of duty claimed was Rs. 11,64,551/-. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted for extended period of five years for demanding duty'. On these averments only the appellant herein was asked to show cause why the extended period of five years should not be invoked under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for demanding Central Excise Duty beyond six months. Further statement that the party misled or suppressed the facts are also not helpful to the department. According to Counsel these averments in the SCN are not sufficient for invoking the extended period of limitation. In support of this argument, reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. HMM Ltd. reported in [1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)]. In that case the Lordship observed - If the Department proposes to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial duty in relation to the clearance effected during the said three months, the matter is remitted back to the concerned jurisdictional authority. The jurisdictional authority will decide the issue expeditiously within four months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Appeal No. E/3326/2000-A is at the instance of the Revenue questioning the reduction of penalty. The Commissioner in the impugned order was following the orders pronounced by this Tribunal. He cannot be faulted in doing so. So there is no substance in this appeal. Further in the instant case since we have found that Department has not substantiated grounds for invoking the extended period in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1), no penalty under Section 11AC could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
