TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned that the manner of determination of assessable value they have shown the MRP of the product but there is no column showing the assessable value after deducting abatement from the MRP. In the absence of which there is no assessable value shown of the products manufactured by them in the table though on the top of the table it is shown assessable value calculated on the retail sale price as per Notification No. 2/05. Therefore, non-mentioning of correct assessable value as per Notification No.2/05 is clearly a willful mis-statement by the appellants and the extended period under Sec. 11A is clearly invokable in this case - interest and penalty rightly been imposed on the appellants - against assessee. - E/870/09-Mum - A/847/12/EB/C- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the impugned order under which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty of Rs.62,40,570/- and also ordered recovery of interest under Sec. 11AB of the Central Excise Act and also imposed penalty equivalent to the duty as confirmed by the Commissioner. The appellants are in appeal before the tribunal against the impugned order. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not challenging the order on merit but are challenging the order only on the ground of time limitation. He submitted that the relevant fact for the purpose of demanding differential duty is calculation of assessable value after deduction of excise duty from the MRP and thereafter abateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 10.1.2005 was submitted to the Asstt. Commissioner on 28.1.2005 and in December, 2006, audit was conducted by the Central Excise Department at the premises of the appellants and objection regarding correct valuation of the goods was raised by the Audit and thereafter from February, 2007 the appellants started paying duty as per the computation undertaken by the department. Since the appellants had not declared the correct assessable value, extended period had rightly been invoked by the department and the demand confirmed by the Commissioner is sustainable. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that, the issue involved in the appeal is regarding valuation of the goods under Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby specifies the goods mentioned in column (3) of the Table below and falling under Chapter or Heading No. or Sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, as the goods to which the provisions of the said sub-section (2) shall apply, and allows as abatement the percentage of retail sale price mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table:- Sr. No. Chapter or Heading No. or Sub-heading No. Description Abatement as a percentage of retai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Notification No.2/05 is clearly a willful mis-statement by the appellants and the extended period under Sec. 11A is clearly invokable in this case. 11. We find that the appellants are working under self-assessment procedure and it is their duty to compute the correct assessable value and correct duty payable by them in their assessment documents. In the Enclosures to their letter they have not mentioned the correct assessable value and accordingly have not correctly computed the central excise duty payable by them for which show-cause notice demanding the differential duty has correctly been issued to them invoking the extended period of limitation. 12. When the audit was conducted at the appellants' unit in December, 2006 and the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
