TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/469/2002 - 593/2007 - Dated:- 15-5-2007 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Smt. L. Maithili, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner of Central Excise, in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 27-3-2001, demanded differential duty of Rs. 69,76,631/- from the appellants in respect of the refractory bricks which were cleared by them to various buyers during the period March, 1996 to November, 2000. Learned Commissioner also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient ground was not raised in the show-cause notice for invoking the larger period of limitation. Learned SDR has contested this claim on the strength of the allegations raised in the show-cause notice and the findings recorded in the impugned order. We find that the department alleged that material facts had been withheld from the department by the appellants with intent to evade payment of duty. In this connection, it is submitted by learned counsel that the appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking with no intent to evade duty. No such intent has been established by the Revenue either. In the circumstances, according to learned counsel, the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act were wrongly invoked for demanding du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd category of proforma invoices, the appellants claimed special packing charges from their buyers and these charges have also been included in the assessable value of the subject goods by the Commissioner. It is submitted by learned counsel that such charges are not includible in the assessable value of the goods as held by the Tribunal in the case of Lacto Cosmetics (P) Ltd. v Collector [1996 (82) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal)]. It is submitted that the civil appeal filed against the said decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the apex court vide Collector v. Lacto Cosmetics (P) Ltd. [1999 (106) E.L.T. A190 (S.C.)]. Learned SDR has cited the apex court s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v Hindustan Safety Glass Works Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
