9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lore-I Commissionerate, Bangalore. In the subject matter, the CESTAT earlier had passed Final Order Nos. 142 & 143/2006 dated 1.2.2006 wherein it was held as follows : (a) The demand of differential duty on the ground of under-valuation for the period from 1.2.2002 to 30.1.2003 of Rs. 28,23,031/- was upheld and invocation of extended period was also held to be justified. (b) As regards duty on clearance of goods even after crossing SSI exemption limit without payment of duty is concerned, demand of duty was upheld and held that there is a need for re-computation of duty liability after granting benefit of Modvat credit on inputs and other admissible deductions. 2. The appellant has stated that in pursuance of the above order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is high-pitched and is contrary to the directions of this Honorable Tribunal vide order dated 1.2.06 as also evidence on record. Consequently, the imposition of penalties are also high-pitched and hence the present appeals. The appellants submit that the value of clearances on account of clearance of goods even after crossing SSI limit without payment of duty for the period from 1.6.2001 to 30.1.2002 is Rs. 2,07,03,409/- as per Para-7 of the SCN, whereas the impugned order has wrongly reckoned it as Rs. 2,93,10,440/-. This is contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal at Para 12 of the Final Order. Therefore, this mistake in reckoning the correct value has resulted in high-pitched duty demand and consequent penalty. It is furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. 6. We have carefully considered the full facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides. 7. The grievances of the appellants are that regarding production of Chartered Accountant s certificate dated 29.5.2007, with reference to claim for Modvat on capital goods, the impugned order did not provide them the benefit of Cenvat credit on this account. We find that the impugned order mentions that the assessee was unable to furnish the break-up of the amount with reference to the capital goods namely, plant and machinery and moulds, and Revenue could not verify the admissibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and did not allow the same. 7.1. The appellants have further grievance that they have made additional deposits of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03,409/-@ Less: SSI exemption under notification No.8/02-CE dated 1.3.02 1,00,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- Balance value of clearances 1,93,10,440/- 1,07,03,409/- Less: Deductions towards sales tax for the periods 2001-02 and 2002-03 3,98,082/- 3,98,082/- Balance value of clearances 1,89,12,358/- 1,03,05,327/- AV taking balance value as cum-duty AVx100/116 1,63,03,757/- 88,83,903/- C.EX duty at 16% Adv. 26,08,601/- 14,21,424/- Add: CEX duty for 1.2.2002 to 31.3.2003 28,23,031/- 28,23,031/- Total duty liability 54,31,632/- 42,44,455/- Less: Admissible Modvat/Cenvat credit 1,80,204/- Nil 1,80,204/- 17,14,480/- Balance duty payable 52,51,428/- 23,49,771/- Less: Amounts already paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
