TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gave his finding in respect of each SCN. He applied the particulars available in the CAS-4 Certificates submitted by the appellant and after analyzing the various details came to the conclusion as found in the impugned order. In such a situation we find there is no ground for imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining the question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. We find that the Original authority did not substantiate the reason for imposing penalty under Rule 25 specially when he has found that there is no ground to al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Price of Excisable Goods] Rules, 2000. The case against the appellant is that they have not adopted 110% of cost of production properly in terms of CAS-4. Three SCNs were issued covering the period March 2004 to January 2005 to demand differential duty. The case was adjudicated by the impugned order and the Ld. Commissioner confirmed reduced differential duties in respect of all the three demands. In respect of first notice, he confirmed the demand of ₹ 18,713/- as against ₹ 1,95,297/- demanded in the notice. Similarly in respect of second SCN an amount of ₹ 3,56,486/- was confirmed as against the proposal of ₹ 2,39,52,636/-. In respect of 3rd SCN, the amount confirmed was ₹ 47,37,915/- as against the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Director (Cost) and the CAS-4 details submitted by the appellants. He found that when total is calculated the difference works out to negligible amount. There was some difference of opinion regarding allocation of overhead expenses. Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner gave his finding in respect of each SCN. He applied the particulars available in the CAS-4 Certificates submitted by the appellant and after analyzing the various details came to the conclusion as found in the impugned order. In such a situation we find there is no ground for imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (2000) ELT 71 (Guj.)] Hon-ble Gujarat High Court held that the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
