Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1016 - AT - Central ExcisePayment of 10% of the value of exempted goods - amount reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether the amount reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and subsequently, recovered from their customers would form part of the total price of the exempted goods? - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- What can only be inferred from the show-cause notice is that the appellants have recovered 10%, of the amount representing value of exempted goods, from their customers. The appellants are showing value of the exempted goods and 10% of the value separately - We do not find that in the instance case it is established that the appellants are treating this 10% as duty and are arriving that cum-duty price of the exempted goods. Applicability of decision of Larger Bench in the case of M/S KRITI INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE INDORE [2017 (5) TMI 603 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - HELD THAT:- Larger Bench has concluded that payment of an amount at the rate of 8% or 10% under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not a duty, not a tax and hence, cannot be deducted from the price of the exempted goods cleared by consuming cenvated inputs. It follows from this decision that the said 8% or 10%, as the case may be, cannot be deducted from the price of exempted goods - As long as it is not proved that the amount recovered from the customers is not a cum-duty value that is arrived after deducting the said 10% from the total value, facts of the instance case are different from the one dealt by the Larger Bench - We do not find anything in the show-cause notice or the orders of the lower authorities that the issue being discussed in the instance case is about the arriving of cum-duty value or the applicability of provisions of Section 11D. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There are no reason that an intention on the part of the appellant can be adduced in view of the facts of the facts and also in view of the fact that the demanded amount is only ₹ 13,686/-. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the show-cause notice is held to be barred by limitation and thus, needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|