Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1132 - CESTAT AHMEDABADValuation of goods - Undervaluation - MRP based valuation of ceramic tiles - Demand of differential duty - Held that:- For the period prior to 1.3.2008, the provisions of Section 4A will be applicable and there is being no prescribed valuation rules under the said Section, the MRP/RSP cannot be re-determined; for the period post 1.3.2008, the value needs to be re-determined as per the valuation rules prescribed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944, for which we remand the matter back to the lower authorities to follow the direction given by this Bench in the case of Acme Ceramics & Others (2014 (3) TMI 164 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). Confirmation of the duty liability as indicated hereinabove needs to be upheld; as appellant-assessees are not contesting the demand on the clandestine removal as has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. As we are upholding the confirmation of the demand on the clandestine removal of the goods, we uphold the interest liability and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. We also state that wherever the adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of discharge of penalty @ 25% of the confirmed duty liability, the same is extended to those assessees - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|