9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 thereby duty liability is determined based on MRP of the goods. Certain enquiries were conducted by the officers of DGCEI in April 2009. It was found that the appellants were not following properly the MRP based assessment in respect of certain wrapped tyres cleared during the year 2006-2007. Further enquiries were conducted, however, there was no differential duty or demand proceedings consequent of such enquiry. That the assessment has to be done under Section 4A has been accepted by the appellants. However, they have earlier claimed certain refunds from the Department relating to certain discounts given for tyres on which duty was discharged in terms of transaction value under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that during 2006-2007 some of their tyres were cleared in wrapped condition and should have suffered duty under Section 4A instead of Section 4. There was no duty difference or demand from the Department due to such change in provisions of assessment. However, the refund claimed and sanctioned in terms of Section 4 Valuation is not sustainable as assessment under Section 4A does not recognize any transaction value or discount to dealers. As such, the refund claimed and sanctioned is paid back with interest by the appellants. This was duly intimated to the investigating officers and no proceedings were initiated for two years thereafter. Appellants pleaded that the present proceedings initiated vide show cause notice dated 08/8/2011 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This much can be inferred as subsequent to the enquiry by the officers of DGCEI there is no demand or proceedings for any differential duty. However, adopting Section 4 Valuation earlier resulted in certain refund which was paid back by the appellants with interest in April 2009. There is no allegation that the refund claim was filed and obtained fraudulently by mis-representation of facts. Apparently, the refund claim sanctioned during the material period by the Department was under the belief that transaction value under Section 4 was applicable to the appellants. Considering the above factual details and payment of the full amount with interest by the appellants, the show cause notice issued more than two years after such payment is wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
