TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi [2014 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT] and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur [2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable value. Therefore, the issue is no more res integra and we hold that the impugned orders are not correct on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndran, Member (Technical) Appearance: Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the Appellants Shri B.L. Narsimhan Shri S K Pahwam Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents Per Ashok Jindal: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned orders. 2. As all the appeals are having common issue, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. The respondents are manufacturer of excisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation to demand duty and also for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty on the amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent along with interest and penalty were also imposed. The said orders were challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who relied on the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers are not correct on merits. 5. The respondents also contested the issue on limitation. We find that during the relevant period there was CBEC Circular dated 30.06.2000 which provides that any amount of concession on sales tax retained by the respondent is not required to be added in the assessable value and there are certain judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal holding the same view in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
