TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that upon being pointed out the differential duty, the same was made good immediately with appropriate interest, coupled with no allegation or even a whisper about any technical breach or lack of explanation in the SCNs, lead to irrefutable conclusion that the SCNs were issued in a routine manner without any proper justification whatsoever. The same are therefore issued beyond the normal period only to impose penalty and the same has rightly been knocked down by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 40360 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40669/2019 - Dated:- 15-4-2019 - MR MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER And MR P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (SHE cess) was computed and given that was also paid along with interest. Further also there was excess payment of ₹ 26,99,641/- (BED) ₹ 53,992/- (E.Cess), ₹ 26,997/- (SHE-cess) for the period December 2007 to March 2008. From April 2008 onwards the respondent adopted cost of production plus 10% based on the costing information available with them and duty was being paid accordingly on the clearances made. The difference arose only at the end of the financial year 2008-09, based on the cost data of the entire year applied, which was ascertained at a future date. Based on the annual average cost data, differential duty of ₹ 1,86,971/- was computed only for the period April 2008 and May 2008. No duty was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any issues regarding the valuation. He also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Easland Combines Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2003-TIOL-26-SC-CX and Uniworth Textiles Vs. CCE, Raipur- 2013-TIOL-13-SC- CUS., wherein, it has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court that mere non-payment of duty per se does not amount to fraud, mis-statement or suppression, etc. 4. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities placed on record and have also gone through the decisions relied on during the course of arguments. The assessee-respondent has not challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the valuation of job worked goods under Rule 10A of the Valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. Apparently, there is no whisper about any suppression, fraud etc., with an intention to evade payment of tax or duty in the above SCN except alleging contravention of provisions of the Central Excise Rules. In the second SCN also, the differential duty and interest was sought to be recovered/appropriated, apart from proposing penalties under Section 11 AC of the CEA and penalty under Rule 25 of CER, separately. 6. Further, on a perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as also the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we do not see any disputes with regard to the following:- The assessee filing regular returns; The assessee furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|