9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was cleared by the appellant without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18/05/1995, in view of the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 30/AC/DDN/DRPL/2006-07 dated 30/3/2007, during the period from August 2007 to January 2008, classifying the product as "others (Residues)" under Chapter subheading No. 1522 0090. Subsequently, Department observed that the said Fatty Acid should be classified under sub-heading no. 3823 1900 attracting Central Excise duty. The Appellant accepted the contention of the Department and paid duty, taking the clearance value as the cum Excise duty price. The Department questioned the adoption of cum-duty price and demanded differential duty by denying it. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty is not collected separately ,the price actually realized is deemed to be cum-duty price. In the present case also, initially the appellant cleared the goods without payment of duty by availing the Exemption under Notification 89/95 dated 18/05/95. Hence, as per the Explanation cited above, the price actually realized is deemed to be inclusive of duty. 5. In support of their argument, The Appellant referred the Circular No.749/65/2003-CX dated 26.09.2003 issued by the Board clarifying the above issue. The said Circular is also reproduced for ready reference:- Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Valuation of Goods for Central Excise Purposes - Cum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision will apply only prospectively and the old cases will have to be pursued as per the provisions of law prevailing at the relevant time. It is requested that the contents of this Circular may be brought to the notice of all the Commissioners under your charge for necessary action at their end. 6. From the Circular and the Explanation to Section 4 cited above, it is clear that when the duty is not charged separately, the price collected is deemed to be cum-duty price. We find that the Appellant has already adopted the value realized as cum-duty price and paid the duty accordingly. Thus, we find that the duty paid by the Appellant is in order. 7. The Appellant cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Triveni Udyog v. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
