9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plastic jar, corrugated boxes, Corrugated top/bottom etc., falling under respective tariff heading of the First Scheduled to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing area based exemption under Notification No. 39/2001- CE 31.07.2011. The appellant have got various depots situated across India and they clear the finished goods manufactured by them to these depots from time to time. The Department observed that during the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 (upto April, 2009). The appellant had cleared their finished goods to their depots and paid duty on the value determined by them at the factory gate. Subsequently from depot the goods were sold at higher price that was actually charged by them at their depot. The case of the department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of fact, it was also submitted by the appellant that even if duty would have been paid the same would have been refunded along with the refund already granted under Notification No. 39/2001-CE and therefore, being a revenue neutral situation there was no intention to pay short payment of duty, for this reason also mala fide intention is not established, hence the extended period cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case. 4. Shri Kalpesh P. Shah, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submission made by learned AR and perusal of record. We find that as regard the dispute about valuation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on other they were entitled for the refund claim. In this position the entire exercises is of revenue neutral. For this reason also mala fide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. To invoke the proviso to Section 11A it is not sufficient that ingredient such as suppression mis-statement, fraud, collusion is involved but in addition to that there should be an intent to evade payment of excise duty. In the present case since the appellant was admittedly entitled for the refund of duty demanded in the impugned order there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty. In this circumstances, we are of the clear view that there is absolutely no mala fide intention to evade the payment of duty on the part of the appellant. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
