9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw would arise from the order dated 27.12.2005, passed by the Tribunal:- (i) Whether in the absence of provisional assessment, duty paid in excess can be adjusted against duty short paid, especially when the refund claim of excess duty is otherwise time barred? (ii) Whether in view of non availment of modvat credit, the same can be allowed selectively in respect of only few consignments for which duty demand has been confirmed? 2. The respondent was issued following three show cause notices:- Date Period 3.10.2001 9/2000 to 3/2001 24.4.2002 4/2001 to 11/2001 12.12.2002 12/2001 to 5/2002 3. It was alleged that the assessee had mis-declared the assessable value of the product Salinomycin-350, Mycelia and TMQ (for brevity, 'Goods' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000, relevant to the financial year 2000-01. As the differential duty on a differential value @ Rs. 60.69 per kg. was required to be determined, a show cause notice dated 8.10.2001 was issued demanding central excise duty of Rs. 5,80,841/- under Section 11A of the Act. A penal action was also proposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Similar notices were issued in respect of 4/2001 to 11/2001 on 24.4.2002 and 12/2001 to 5/2002 on 12.12.2002 raising demand of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,40,356/- and Rs. 7,57,842/- under Section 11A of the Act alongwith penal action under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the 1944 Rules. Interest was also claimed under Section 11AB of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority held that amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion. The Tribunal after hearing the parties has recorded the following categorical findings:- " We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides. There is merit in the'- appellants contentions under all the three heads. The very first claim is based on arithmetical error. This error is patent and is required to be corrected. The second claim is also to be allowed inasmuch as amount of short levy for a period cannot be determined without reassessing all the clearances which took place during the relevant period. The omitting of cases where the appellant had erroneously paid more duty would not be correct. Therefore, this grievance is required to be redressed. Modvat credit is also to be allowed, inasmuch as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
