TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Impugned order set aside - the concerned Adjudicating/Competent Authority are directed to finalize provisional assessment of M/s Venugopal Engineering Ltd., now known as M/s Electroparts India Private Ltd. and M/s Domebell Electronics India Private Ltd., with effect from 01/03/1994 - appeal allowed. - E/1653, 1652 & 1654/2007-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs. 70576-70578/2018 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta (Advocate) Shri Hrishikesh (Advocate) for Appellants Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.), AR for Respondent ORDER The issue in these appeals by the Appellants - assessees is under the facts and circumstances where the provisional as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not undertaking any trade activity at their factory, certain trading activity was undertaken at their branches. DEIPL had a general agreement with VIL for the sale of CTVs on principal to principal basis. DEIPL had been manufacturing CTVs for the last several years and had developed their technology for the manufacture of CTVs on their own. Besides, Videocon brand, DEIPL have also been manufacturing and clearing CTVs under different brand names, like Narita, President, etc. The CTVs were subjected to duty at specific rate up to March, 1994. After March, 1994, they were subjected to duty on ad valorem basis. The Appellant was regularly filing returns. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, Noida passed an order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 10%. On account of transportation charges, no proof was submitted. During the period, March, 1994 to February, 1995, M/s EIPL sold 15382 nos. of CTVs sets to M/s VIL at lower price. More than 90% of the sale were made by EIPL in UP only and the party was not required to pay any sales tax in respect of sale made within the State of UP. Thus for March, 1994 to February, 1995, duty works out to be ₹ 41,21,137/- and for the period March, 1995 to December, 1995 in respect of 12,643 no. of CTV sets cleared, the duty liability works out to be ₹ 38,10,406/- * M/s EIPL paid an amount of ₹ 52,89,768/- (₹ 37,74,858/- voluntarily and an amount of ₹ 15,14,910/- under protest). M/s EIPL while depositing amount claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner with the direction for examination of the records in detail and also examine Appellants contentions about provisional assessment and pass appropriate order. 8. Order-in-Original dated 27/02/2003 was passed, whereby the Ld. Commissioner reconfirmed the demand of ₹ 9,98,892/- on the Appellant DEIPL and also imposed penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/-. However, the ld. Commissioner gave the benefit of deductions of Sales Tax and Transportation to M/s DEIPL. Further, Ld. Commissioner confirmed demand of ₹ 79,31,543/- against EIPL and imposed penalty of ₹ 80,00,000/- on M/s. EIPL. Further, he also confirmed penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- on M/s VIL. 9. Again Appeal was preferred before the Hon ble CESTAT (2nd round) vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional assessment. The Hon'ble Court relying on its earlier ruling in the case of Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Patna [1997 (91) E.L.T. 497=(1997) 4 SCC 641] observed that Section 11A deals with recovery of duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. The proceedings under Section 11A have to be commenced with the show cause notice issued within 6 months from the relevant date. Relevant date has been defined under Sub-section 3(ii) to mean in a case where duty of Excise is provisionally assessed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. After final assessment, a copy of the order on the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
