TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned goods cleared from one factory of the appellants to another factory under the new Valuation Rules brought into effect from 01.07.2000. The Department contented that the appellant should have paid the differential duty and claimed refund of excess amount instead of adjustment excess/short payment. In the present case, we find that no sale of the goods involved and the appellant is a job worker and cleared the goods to the raw material supplier on the basis of conversion charges. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), would applicable in the present case. The decision of the LB in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 78 - CESTAT MUMBAI) as relied upon by the Ld. AR is in respect of suo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the show cause notices erroneously proceeded on the basis that the excess amount had been collected from the customers and therefore, the appellant contravened the provisions of Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is contented that after adjustment of excess/short payment of duty, no demand will sustain. They have not collected the excess amount from their customers. After adjustment of excess/short payment of duty, the balance amount had been collected from the customers. The balance amount will be adjusted against the cenvat amount and thereafter, the customers would pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion charges based on the previous months actual. 5. The Tribunal in the case Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), held that net amount of differential duty is payable by the appellant after adjustment of the excess/short payment of duty. In that case, the issue relates to valuation of the impugned goods cleared from one factory of the appellants to another factory under the new Valuation Rules brought into effect from 01.07.2000. The Department contented that the appellant should have paid the differential duty and claimed refund of excess amount instead of adjustment excess/short payment. In the present case, we find that no sale of the goods involved and the appellant is a job worker and cleared the goods to the raw material supplier on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
