TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, we are of the view that penalty is not warranted under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, we set aside the imposition of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.611/07 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75585/2014 - Dated:- 25-9-2014 - D M Misra and I P Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Kaushik Dasgupta, Asstt. Vice President For the Respondent : Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per Dr. D. M. Misra : This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 20/JSR/2007 dated 14.09.2007 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of the Central Excise Service Tax, Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated, which at the relevant point of time, were sold to M/s ACC Ltd at the rate of ₹ 444.78 per M.T. on Ex-Works basis. Also, it could be clear from the Purchase Order/Agreement that under the column Transportation , lifting of the said slag were to be through the authorized transporter of M/s ACC Ltd. from the factory. He has submitted that pursuant to the said Agreement, M/s ACC Ltd. had appointed M/s Suraj Logistics for transportation of slag from stockyard of the Appellants to the railways loading side inside the plant. It is his submission that the handling charges for the lifting of the said slag, was paid directly by M/s ACC Ltd. to M/s Suraj Logistics. He submitted that even though such handling charges cannot form part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the records. The Appellants, in the present case, has challenged only the issue of imposition of penalty of ₹ 4,11,032/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The submission of the Appellant is that the issue of inclusion of handling charges paid to a third party in the premises of the asseesee was not settled at the relevant point of time. The issue got settled only after the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Supreme Petrochem Ltd. (cited supra). In the said decision, it has been ruled that the handling charges prior to 01.07.2000, would invariably be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared from the factory, whereas, for the period after 01.07.2000,, it could be included in the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
