TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cum-duty price, we note that it is well settled law that benefit of cum-duty is required to be extended even in the cases of clandestine removal - The reference in this regard can be made to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Srichakra Tyres Limited vs. CCE, Madra (1999 -TMI - 48754 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)- As such, are of the view that the demand is required to be re-calculated by extending the benefit of cum-duty price. Penalty - As per the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008 -TMI - 31520 - SUPREME COURT), the appellants are liable to penalty under said Section 11AC equivalent to the duty confirmed against them. - E/2720 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices in respect of the goods cleared in March 2002 by wrongly showing the clearances as that of February 2002. In respect of some invoices, issued in February 2002, he deposed that the same were imaginary inasmuch as the goods stand sold to the retail buyers at the factory gate during the month of March 2002, against cash considerations without the cover of any duty paying documents. 4. In the light of above deposition made by the partner, Revenue conducted investigations at the end of the transporters, who admitted having transported the goods for the month of March 2002. 5. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellants by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 30.09.2004, proposing to confirm deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Central Excise Surat vs. M/s. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Limited 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.). As regards the appellant s claim of cum-duty price, we note that it is well settled law that benefit of cum-duty is required to be extended even in the cases of clandestine removal. The reference in this regard can be made to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Srichakra Tyres Limited vs. CCE, Madra reported as 1999 (108) ELT 362 (LB). As such, we are of the view that the demand is required to be re-calculated by extending the benefit of cum-duty price. As regards penalty imposed under Section 11AC, we find that the law now stands declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (89) R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
