TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price is inclusive of Excise duty - Since the appellant has not collected the Excise duty from the buyer during the time when he was availing the SSI exemption, there is no question of demanding the duty from the appellant under Section 11D. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2823/2012-SM - 20847/2018 - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Parasivamurthy, Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of duty of ₹ 21,87,178/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Eight only) along with interest under Section 11DD of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that they had not collected any duty during the said period while availing SSI exemption and has only charged agreed landed price and VAT thereon. The appellant has also raised the ground that no duty can be demanded from them under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Commissioner after considering the submissions of the appellant rejected the appeal of the appellant, Hence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant relied upon the decision in the case of Mayfair Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2009 (234) 663 (Tri.-Ahmd.). He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has refused to follow the ratio laid down in the Mayfair Polymers Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the facts involved in the said decision were different than the facts involved in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the facts in the Mayfair Polymers Pvt. Ltd. were identical as involved in the present case, In the said case also the assessee was enjoying SSI exemption and the price fixed was inclusive of Excise duty and till reaching SSI exemption, the assessee was charging only the fixed price and after crossing the SSI exemption the assessee was reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, Chennai Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd. - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. -Chennai) f) Bata India Limited Vs. CCE - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 395 (Tri. -Kolkata) g) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2003 (162) E.L.T. 391 (Tri. -Mumbai) h) Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (245) E.L.T. 673 (Tri. -Kolkata) i) Switch Gears Control Vs. CCE - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 504 (Tri.-Del.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that admittedly the appellant was working as a SSI unit during the material period and he was availing the SSI exemption. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
