9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out by the audit party, during the audit of Central Excise records maintained by the respondent, the respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 4,01,859/- accepting the Department's contention that the value for the purpose of determination of Central Excise duty should have been arrived at as per Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. However, the respondents had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reported in 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX = 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) in support of this contention. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case observed that whatever be the reason for delayed or deferred payment of duty, interest is leviable. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned JDR and also heard the learned Chartered Accountant for the respondents. In this case, the respondents were cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the value has to be determined as per provisions of Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules. I do not find anything wrong in the view of Commissioner (Appeals) that when the differential duty was not payable, merely because the respondents chose to pay it to avoid unnecessary disputes and litigations, and also in view of the fact that whatever duty was paid by them was admissible as credit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
