2013 (1) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocate, for the Assessee. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. -  Both appeal No. E/2792/2006 and No. 2779/2006 were heard. These two appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 103/2006 (Ahd.-I), dated 22-6-2006. The appellant assessee has filed a cross objection against the impugned order in appeal. Both the appeals has arisen out of the same impugned order; hence they are being .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... grounds including proposition of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice, confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notice along with interest also imposed equal amount as penalty. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate  .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first appellate authority. It is his submission that the first appellate authority have erred in coming to the conclusion by reducing the amount of penalty under Section 11AC. 6. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that the assessee is not challenging the issue on merits. It is his submission that there cannot be any dispute on value of the other charges i.e. engraving c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y not declaring such amounts collected, the lower authority was correct in invoking the extended period. 8. We considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused records. On the question of inclusion of the engraving charges in the value of final products manufactured by the appellant, we find on merit there is no case as conceded by the ld. Counsel, accordingly the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that the amount charged being not for manufacturing activity is not liable to be included in valuation of final products. 9. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we find the demand confirmed by the lower authority by invoking extended period on limitation, cannot be sustained. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order only on the ground of limitation, resulting in allowing the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X