9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed on the basis of communication received from the principal manufacturer. Further the assessable value declared varied only marginally, which is evident from the cost certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Further, the appellant had suo motu paid the differential duty alongwith interest, much before the issue of show-cause notice. The show-cause notice does not allege any contumacious conduct or active disregard to provisions of law or concealment on part of the appellant. The only ground taken in show-cause notice is wrong and misconceived. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2005 is set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit margin. Thus allegation or basis of issuing show-cause notice does not exist. 3.2 Value of own goods, in case of stock transfer was declared at ₹ 56,000/- P.M.T. 3.3 Appellant received details of value of AOS needles (job work for HCL) on 27.12.2003 for the period April, 2000 to March, 2002. Based on such data, differential duty was suo motu paid on 10.02.2004, vide PLA Entry Nos. 033 to 037. Interest as applicable amounting to ₹ 78,157/- was also paid vide challan dated 28.12.2004 and intimations filed with department. 3.4 Vide letter dated 27.10.2003, HLL informed the Appellant, for the period November, 2003 onwards, the assessable value is ₹ 46,500/- P.M.T. This value was much below the value of ₹ 51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by their Chartered Accountant), suo motu payment of differential duty and interest was made under intimation to department. 3.13 The appellant have a good track record of compliance and payment of tax/duty. 4. That the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2005 confirmed the proposed total demand of duty ₹ 36,92,842/- and imposing equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act as well as penalty of ₹ 2 lacs under Rule 173 of 1944 Rules read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. Interest was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Act. It was observed that in view of CBEC Circular No. 619/10/2002 CX dated 19.02.2002, read with the Ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ujagar Prints, there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the present case as M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. were procuring requisite raw materials in bulk quantity at cheaper rates and during the period the processing charges were reduced. They pointed out that the assessable value was worked out by taking the value of raw material + value of job work done + manufacturing expenses and after considering notional profit in view of Board s Circular No. 619/10/2002. They further submitted that, the adjudicating authority has misconceived the Tribunal s judgment in the case of IPF Vikram India Ltd., reported at 2003 (160) ELT 1017 (Trb.) in as much as they had correctly worked out the assessable value and paid duty after considering the landed cost of raw materials supplied by M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntent to evade duty, the demand was hit by limitation. They prayed to set aside the impugned order(s). 7. The ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.), reiterates the findings of the courts below. 8. We have perused the case records carefully and considered the rival contentions. We find that the adjudicating authority have travelled beyond the show-cause notice by adopting comparable value method for confirmation of the demand alongwith penalty. Further, from the documents on record, it is seen that the appellant communicated the declared assessable value, vide declaration filed under Rule 26, from time to time in respect of job work on behalf of HLL. This declaration has been filed on the basis of communication received from the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
