9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t None For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that respondents, who are 100% EOU, are engaged in manufacture of bulk drugs. It appeared that respondents had short paid the Additional Duty of Customs as leviable under Notification No.23/2003 dt. 31.03.2003 as amended by Notification No.22/2006 dt. 1.3.2006 vide Sl.No.2 for the clearances made to their sister unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value. SCN dt. 22.10.2007 was issued to the appellants proposing to demand this differential duty along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand both on merits as well as on the grounds of limitation. Hence the department is now be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods to their sister units they are liable to pay Additional Duty of Customs. Further, the respondents have conceded the liability and paid an amount of Rs. 53,38,492/- being the duty for the period 1.3.2006 to 10.10.2006 on the basis of assessable value which was ascertained by them. The said value was enhanced / re-determined by OIO dt. 28.9.2007 and therefore the respondents are liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. It is clear that in the earlier SCN dt. 22.10.2007 the department had not raised the allegation of extended period of limitation. It is only in the corrigendum issued to the said SCN that they have invoked proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1994 for the period 1.3.2006 to 10.10.2006. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore rightly concluded that as the dispute was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
