TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so is issued on 31.01.2005 - Held that:- the quantifying the collection charges collected in 2003-04 and having directed JRO to verify the issue in detail and take necessary action to safeguard the revenue, department cannot then take its own sweet time to issue notice on 29.09.2007 i.e., after a lapse of more than four years of the audit. Therefore, the appellant does have a case on the issue of limitation, and that SCN and hence the demand revised in the impugned order is time barred except for the normal period of demand immediately preceding the date of service of Show Cause Notice. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 is also set aside. the demand raised beyond the normal period, is hit by limitation and unsustainable. The impugned demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount deposited by them. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2007, inter alia, demanding differential duty of ₹ 2,72,507/- on the ground that though the appellants have received an additional consideration amounting to ₹ 58,54,151/-, however, they have discharged duty liability only on ₹ 41,17,675/-. On this ground, recovery was proposed to demand differential duty payable by the appellant with respect to additional consideration received towards collection charges during the period from September 2002 to March 2007. b. Adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 06.02.2008, confirming the proposals in the SCN. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed an appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collection Charges 16,69,708 14,39,400 2,30,308 36849 - 2 2003-04 Collection Charges 31,49,761 27,32,275 4,17,486 66798 - 3 2004-05 Collection Charges 9,05,065 - 9,05,065 1,44,810 2896 4 2004-05 Weighment difference 11930 - 11930 1909 38 5 2005- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
