9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the goods at the assessee's factory gate. These charges were borne by the buyer. The other element, which was not included in the assessable value of the goods, was the remuneration received by two employees of the buyer (HLL) for their quality control activity performed in the assessee's factory. After including these elements also in the assessable value of the goods, the original authority raised a demand of differential duty on the assessee, amounting to Rs. 1,70,277/-. As the assessee had not disclosed to the department the fact that they had not included the above elements in the assessable value of the goods, the larger period of limitation was invoked for demanding this duty on the basis of 'suppression of facts' found agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the Department inasmuch as it is settled law that no penalty can be imposed under a given provision of law for any period prior to the date on which the said provision was introduced. Section 11AC was enacted with effect from 28-9-96 without any retrospective effect and, therefore, no such penalty could have been imposed on the assessee for the period prior to the said date as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence appeal No. E/769/99 stands dismissed. 2. In the assessee's appeal, the main challenge is against the demand of differential duty. The ld. Counsel submits that neither the salary of HLL's employees nor the loading charges was liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is against the residuary penalty under Section 11AC. In terms of the impugned order, there is a penalty on the assessee which is equal to the amount of duty demanded from them for the period from 28-9-96 to October, 97. Ld. Counsel has questioned the reasonableness of this penalty. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the maximum penalty prescribed under Section 11AC cannot be imposed on the party. It is also submitted that entire amount of duty had been paid by the assessee prior to the issuance of show-cause notice. In such facts and circumstances, no penalty was imposable under Section 11AC as held in a line of decisions of the apex Court and this Tribunal. Hence the residuary penalty on the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
