TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed by the dealing clerk. Which mean that the job charges were not included in the assessable value due to mistake and there was no intention to suppress the facts or intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore it cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellants were having any intention of fraud, wilfull mis-statement or suppression of facts and have intention to evade payment of duty in contravention to the provisions of the Central Excise Act/Rules. Moreover as already ordered by Tribunal, excess payments on account of loading by 15% were to be adjusted against short payments. Therefore, we hold that in this case the extended period is also not invokable. In this case, we find that for the period 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the appellant has availed deemed credit correctly. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/89202 to 89205/2013-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/712-716/2014-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 13-8-2014 - Ashok Jindal And P S Pruthi,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri M H Patil, Adv. Shri T C Nair, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S G Dewalwar, Addl. Commr. (AR) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein demand of duty has been confirmed against M/s. Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd. and deemed credit was denied, interest was also imposed and various penalties have been imposed on the appellant and co-appellants namely Shri Randhir Sharma, Shri Kash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty for goods cleared for home consumption. After completing the investigation, the department issued a show-cause notice dated 23.08.2006 wherein it was alleged that the appellant assessee had short paid Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 7,85,423/- in respect of processed fabrics cleared from their factory during the period from August, 2001 to March, 2004. The show-cause notice further proposed to dis-allow deemed CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 90,89,899/- availed by the assessee on the clearance of processed fabrics for home consumption during the period from August, 2001 to March, 2004 under the provisions of para 6 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002. The show-cause notice was also proposed to recover wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal with the direction as under: We notice that during the material period of time from August, 2001 to October, 2002, the appellants (textile processors) were directed to load their job charges by 15% towards notional profit vide Trade Notice No. 20/2001 dated 24.03.2001 issued by the Mumbai III Commissionerate. This Trade Notice was clearly in contravention of law and against the direction of the Board issued vide Order No. 24/14/93/Cx Dated 31.12.1993 wherein the Board had clarified that in respect of job work, the assessable value shall consist of only the cost of materials at the premises of the job worker + job charges. Further in the instruction issued on 19.2.2002 the Board had reiterated the same in the light of the ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me invoices where the assessee has been alleged to have short paid the duty. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 7,85,423/- has to be re-computed taking into account the excess payments made by the appellants on account of additional of 15% notional profit and we order accordingly . In remand proceedings the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as per initial order of adjudication. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us. 3. After going through the submissions made by both sides. We find that in the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority was directed to ascertain the correct value on which duty is payable after ignoring the 15% profit margin and 2% additional shrinkage as it is a case of valuation as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further find that the appellants are paying duty on job charges plus 15% towards notional profit as per the Trade Notice No. 20/2001 dated 24/03/2001 which was not required to be paid. If the 15% notional profit is excluded then the appellant have paid excess duty which is required to be adjusted against the charges of additional processing such as rotary peaching or zero zero etc.. Then the duty demand would not be there; accordingly the appellant would be entitled to take deemed credit as per notification No. 6/2002 CE(NT) dated 1/3/2002. In these terms when there is no demand of duty against the appellant they are entitle for availing deemed credit as per notification no. 6/2002. In the case of goods cleared for home consumption deemed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
