Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 817 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - Section 4 or 4A of CEA - relays manufactured and cleared - N/N. 9/2002-CE dated 1/3/2002 and 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 - request of cross examination denied - whether the relays manufactured and cleared by the appellant are to be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as claimed by the appellants or under Section 4A as claimed by the revenue? - penalty under Section 11AC - extended period of limitation. Held that:- The issue in respect of manner of assessment of “Relays” sold in the manner as have been cleared by the Appellants is no longer res-integra. Tribunal has in case of Schneider Electrical India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Central Excise Nashik [2014 (1) TMI 1642 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that the appellants are required to affix MRP on the impugned goods. It is an admitted fact the appellants were using the brand name on their goods which did not belonged to them but was owned by someone else - the benefit of exemption under Notification No 9/2002-CE dated 1/3/2002 and 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 has been correctly denied to the appellants. Cross-examination of witnesses - Held that:- The purpose of cross examination is to give opportunity to the person against whom the case has been made out to challenge the evidences produced against him by way of such depositions made and relied upon by the revenue. The purpose of cross examination is not for the acceptance of the evidence by the accusing department (revenue) but to provide opportunity to the accused to test the correctness of depositions made against him and bring out the truth - The view of Commissioner stating that because the depositions made by the sub dealers is acceptable to him, cannot be ground for denying the opportunity of cross examination to the appellants - In case the person whose cross examination is sought is not available or cannot be made available, Commissioner should inform the appellant and also make a specific mention of the same in the order that he will issue. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that:- Since issue of limitation has not been adjudged by either the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeal), the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the issue on limitation - Since the matter in respect of determination of extended period of limitation is being remanded to the original authority the issue in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is also remanded to the same authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|