9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke capacitors, control panels and mounting structures and was claiming the benefit of small scale exemption as per Notification No. 175/86 dated 01/03/1986 as amended. During the verification of records of the assessee, it was noticed by the Central Excise officers that the appellant had exceeded clearance value of Rs. 2 crore during the previous financial year 1989-90. Hence it was concluded that the appellant was ineligible for exemption under Notification 175/86. The show cause notice was adjudicated and it was held that the appellant was liable to discharge of differential duty and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide final order dated 20/11/1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than the penalty which was imposed in the first round, which is incorrect as has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of MRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa 2007 (210) ELT 96. It is her further submission that the post amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1994, the eventual value payable after factoring in any liquidated damages contractually stipulated for delayed supply would be the transaction value and this value would be the value relevant for levy of duty. This proposition of the learned counsel is for the argument that the amount of penalty which has been paid by the appellant to the contractees should be deducted from the value of clearances as these are not in respect of sale of the goods and in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has not allowed deduction of the amount of penalty paid by the appellant for delayed execution of contracts and the amount of freight and insurance which is being allowed is less than the amount which has been actually claimed by the appellant. 6. As regards the penalty we find that the said penalty is in respect of delayed execution of contract with the buyers. In our considered view, during the period in question 1989-90, the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contemplated the assessable value to be the normal price at which the goods are sold. In the case in hand, the normal price of the goods is the price at which the goods were sold at the factory gate when the clearances took place under the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e foregoing, we find that the conclusion reached by the adjudicating authority is correct. 9. Another point raised by the learned counsel is on the ground of limitation. She has drawn our attention to the declarations filed by the appellant before the Superintendent of Central Excise and the classification list. We find that the declarations made by the appellant did not indicate how they have worked out the clearance value of Rs. 1.99 crore. The entire value of Rs. 2 crore was worked out based upon their own documents which was checked by the authority during the visit to their factory. Hence there has been mis-declaration of the value and accordingly the claim of the appellant that the issue is time-barred also has no force. 10. As rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
