9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 2601 11 50 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The entire quantity of iron ore concentrate is stock transferred by them to their unit at Visakhapatnam where it is used for manufacture of iron ore pellets which are cleared on payment of appropriate duty of excise. The party's main raw material is iron ore fines and slimes which are processed to make iron ore concentrate and which are procured from National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). The cost of iron ore fines and slimes is more than 75% of the total cost of production of iron ore concentrate. The period of dispute in this case is from April, 2007 to March, 2009. During this period, the appellant in respect of iron ore concentrate cleared by them to their Visakhapatnam un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also for imposition of penalty on them under Section 11AC. The duty was sought to be recovered for April, 2007 to March, 2009 period by invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1). 1.2 The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31-3-2013 by which the Commissioner confirmed the above duty demand along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11AC. The Commissioner while confirming the demand observed that the appellant did not make payment of duty after arriving at the correct cost of production and thus have suppressed the value of the goods cleared by them for captive consumption resulting in short payment of duty. Against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is lower than the cost of production adopted by the department, that the department has ignored the excess duty paid during the months when the cost of production adopted by the appellant is higher than the cost of production determined by the department and if the excess duty paid is adjusted against the short payment, there would be net excess payment of duty, and that the excess payment of duty paid during certain months has to be adjusted against the short payment in other months in view of Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Panchkula v. Yamuna Gases & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T. 209 (Tri. - Del.). He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour as, in fact, they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s format is available or it could be determined for month to month basis. The appellant during a particular financial year, instead of determining the cost of production for the entire year in CAS-4 format, have determined the same from time to time as and when the cost of the raw materials changed. The information regarding duty payment during each month during the period of dispute, placed on record by the appellant clearly shows that if the cost of production is determined in CAS-4 format on annual basis, as sought by the Department and 110% of such cost of production is adopted, the assessable value, while during certain months there would be excess payment of duty, during other months there would be short payment of duty. It is also se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
