9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,68,84,408/- has been confirmed alongwith equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (the Act) read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and applicable interest under Section 11AA of the said Act, for the period from January 2009 to November 2013 by invoking extended period of limitation as proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2014 (SCN). 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of explosives and allied products on which central excise duty is being paid. During the period in dispute, the appellant has cleared "Matrix Emulsion" from its manufacturing unit located at Napara, Barabani, Burdwan to its sister unit at Dhanbad, by valuing the said goods under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been classified by them under Ch. 3602.00.90 which have been cleared from their Burdwan factory is not a final product, but have been further used in the manufacture of final product i.e. Site Mixed Explosives at their Dhanabd unit, which is classifiable under Ch. 3602.00.10. Since the goods cleared from their Burdwan factory and final products cleared from their Dhanbad factory and not comparable, the price of later goods cannot be adopted for raising the impugned duty demand. (iii) He further submitted that the goods, Matrix Emulsion, is not an explosive and is not marketable. As per the Explosives Act, they are not entitled to sell such goods. Since both the goods i.e. Matrix Emulsion and Site Mixed Explosives are different products, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of goods removed by the appellant to their unit located at Dhanbad would be in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules or Rule 8 of the said Rules as adopted by the appellant. We find that the appellant has duly filed reply to SCN on 16.10.2015 which is appearing at Page no. 249 of the Appeal Book. The Ld. Commissioner without taking into cognizance of the said Reply, has passed the impugned order wherein he has recorded that no Reply has been submitted till 29.09.2015. We find that since the impugned order has been passed after more than 3 months, the Ld. Commissioner was not justified in not considering the written reply submitted by the appellant. 8. The appellant has submitted that both the goods in question are different and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted duly supported with documents in the remand proceedings. 10. In so far as the invocation of extended period of limitation is concerned, we have carefully examined the SCN as well as the impugned order. After having gone through the same, we do not find any specific instance or allegation to show that the demanded duty amount has not been deliberately paid for reasons on account of fraud or suppression to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation. We have also gone through the specimen excise invoices have duly issued to their Dhanbad unit, enclosed in page nos. 141 to 147 of the Appeal Paper Book, which shows that the goods have been cleared to their Dhanbad unit. The Department was at its liberty to examine the aspect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
