Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 808 - AT - Central ExcisePenalties under section 11AC of Customs Act, 1962 and rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - mandate for inclusion of amortized cost had not been complied with in computing the assessable value for discharge of duty liability - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the computations leading to the confirmation of demand during the first round of litigation were revised substantially during the second round indicating lack of certainty when proceedings were initiated by the central excise authorities. A higher measure of certainty cannot be expected of an assessee. It is also seen from the records that guidelines on proportionate allocation of costs were covered in circular no. 170/4/96-CX dated 23rd January 1996 of Central Board of Excise & Customs whereas the demand pertains to a period prior to that also. Reliance can be placed in the case of UNIFLEX CABLES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II [2011 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Penalty not imposable when issue involved is of interpretational nature - the case renders a finding that is equally applicable insofar as the ingredients permitting the extended period in section 11A of Customs Act, 1962 to be invoked; it is settled law that one cannot exist without the other. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|