9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 1,27,229/- on account of duty paid on freight charges on transport of goods from factory to the depot for the period January 2007 to December 2007. Initially they took suo moto credit of Rs. 1,27,229/- in the RG23A part II on 30.03.2008. Subsequently, they reversed the credit of Rs. 1,27,229/- along with int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also held that penalty is imposable. Therefore, appellant is before me. 2. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they have cleared the goods to their depot and paid the duty on the value arrived on the cost basis wherein equivalent freight at the rate of 4% was already included. However, inadvertently, the freight was again separately mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by both sides. I find that the appellant s contention is that the duty was paid on the freight mentioned in the invoice whereas the freight was already considered in the cost of the product on which the excise duty was paid at the time of depot clearance. I am of the view that in case of goods sold from depot, the sale price prevailing at depot has to be considered for the purpose of valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded to the original authority for passing a fresh order on the refund of the appellant. 6. As regards the penalty under Section 11AC, it is observed that both lower authorities have shown the non-application of mind by imposing penalty under Section 11AC in the case of refund claimed by the appellant under Section 11B. Section 11AC can be invoked either in case of recovery of short paid/ no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
