9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/ assessees are engaged in the manufacture of plastic pipes and accessories etc. liable to Central Excise Duty. In December, 2004 certain investigations were carried out regarding possible non-payment of proper Central Excise Duty by the assessee. Consequently, proceedings were initiated to demand and recover Central Excise Duty on various grounds. Relevant to the present proceedings are two issues, namely, (a) inclusion of the amount of 8% of value of the exempted pipes paid in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules in calculating the amount payable in terms of the said Rule. (b) Payment of an amount equal to 8% on exempted sprinkler system instead of 8% of HD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is in error to hold the demand is substantially time barred. It is contended that the assessee had never informed the Department in any correspondence or in their monthly return regarding the fact of captive consumption of HDPE pipes in the manufacture of sprinkler system. But for the inquiry conducted by the Department, the issue could not have been noticed for corrective action. Hence, it is submitted that the demand in full is recoverable and penalty is also correctly imposed by the original authority. 5. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The two issues for decision are: (a) the valuation adopted by the assessee in respect of the exempted pipes cleared and (b) co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) to reverse an amount of 8%/10%, when they clear exempted products. This is a statutory obligation. It is an admitted fact that this is not an excise duty. However, this statutory payment is recovered by the appellant from the buyers. In this connection, we find that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut vs. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 523 (S.C.) examined the scope of the terms "other taxes" mentioned in Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of Central Excise Act for exclusion from assessable value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that taxes as such are not defined in the Central Excise Act. If the expression "tax" is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it would certainly cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
