TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such amount retained by the assessee is not required to be added to the assessable value - Since there was no clarity on the issue, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence extended period would not be available to raise the demand. The appellant will be entitled to the benefit of time bar - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/458/2009 - ORDER NO. FO/75091/2019 - Dated:- 8-1-2019 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri A. K. Bhattacharya, Consultant for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER CORAM The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1921/SLG/2009 dated 05/06/2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential duty may be restricted to the Normal time limit. 6. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Lower Authorities. 7. We observe that the valuation dispute in this case arose in view of the fact that the appellant unit is situated in a backward area of West Bengal and they were permitted under West Bengal Sales Tax Act to collect the Sales Tax from their buyers and retain the same without remitting to the Sales Tax Department. The above benefit was extended by way of an incentive to set up units in the backward districts of West Bengal. Revenue has taken the view that the amount of Sales Tax retained by the appellant is required to be included in the assessable value for payment of Central Excise Duty. 8. We find that the issue ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 12.1 Department has accepted the order of the Hon ble High Court where the Hon ble Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC) ad Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 dismissed the departmental appeal. 12.2 In the case, CESTAT relying on Apex Court decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 had held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CESTAT held that extended period of limitation would not apply. Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
