TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2002 and not from the payment of differential duty. Therefore, the demand of interest on merit is sustainable, however, the appellant have strongly argued on the limitation. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant had practice to pay the duty on provisional value at the time of removal of the goods and only on finalization of books of accounts the actual cost of manufacturing is arrived at and whenever there is a short of value, they were paying the differential duty - there is no suppression of facts and mala fide on the part of the appellants. Accordingly the demand for extended period is not sustainable. Demand set aside on the ground of limitation. - Excise Appeal No. 174 of 2012 With 11927 of 2019 - A/12341-12342/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission is only on limitation. He submits that the appellant has disclosed their modus operandi of valuation of the goods vide letter dated 14 July, 2006. According to the said letter the appellants were paying duty by applying due date and since the value was not ascertained at the time of removal of the goods the differential duty was paid after finalization of cost of manufacturing. Therefore, there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. He submits that the due date for payment of interest should start from the date of payment of differential duty. Therefore, from such date the demand of interest beyond one year is time barred. He also placed reliance on the following judgment. Apar Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also observed that even before audit the appellant had been paying the differential duty as per their above method. It is also observed that the supply of the goods is to their own division who are entitled for the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, due to Revenue neutral situation extended period could not have been invoked. With these facts there is no suppression of facts and mala fide on the part of the appellants. Accordingly the demand for extended period is not sustainable, as a result appeal No. E/174/2012 involves entire demand of extended period is allowed. 5. As regard the appeal No. E/11927/2019 Shri S. J. Vyas, Learned counsel submits that in this appeal, since the amount is very meagre the appellant is not contesting an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
