9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Per Bench The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Containers and are registered with the Central Excise Department. During the course of verification, it was found that for the period 2002-03, the Oil Companies to whom the appellant was supplying the finished products had supplied free of cost to the appellants, the items such as Moulds, Stickers/Labels, BOPP Tape etc., requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is incorrect, which result in short payment of duty and therefore show cause notice was issued to the appellants. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 90,437/- along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, the appellants are before this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also argued by him that entire duty was paid even before issue of SCN and therefore the authorities below ought not to have imposed penalty. 3. Against this, Ld. AR, Shri S. Govidarajan, AC, reiterated the findings in page-7 of the impugned order and submitted that the appellants have knowingly adopted two different methods to arrive at the assessable value. By one method, they included the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants have not included the amortized cost of free items while arriving the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 1 Crore, in terms of SSI exemption Notification No. 9/2002. When such amortized cost of free items is included, appellants are not eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption. The only defence pointed out by the appellants is that they have fully co-operated by furnishing the details of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
