TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules as held by the High Court and that Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Thus, the Revenue has every right to demand the duty for the normal period of limitation under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indchemie Health Specialities (2008 (11) TMI 514 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) would not be applicable herein. So, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. A Show Cause Notice Dated 09.03.2006 was issued proposing demand of duty of ₹ 11,82,445.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the period from April 2005 to June 2005 on the ground that the appellant is liable to pay duty as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. The Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the law is settled by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Drugs Manufacturers Association vs Union of India 2008 (222) E.L.T. 22 (Bom.) and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II 2008 (232) E.L.T. 245 (Tri.-LB.). 4. We find that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. Thus, the Revenue has every right to demand the duty for the normal period of limitation under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indchemie Health Specialities (supra) would not be applicable herein. So, the demand of duty alongwith interest is justified. 5. We agree with the submission of the Learned Advocate on behalf of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
