TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 invoking extended period of limitation sustained for the reason that entire facts were in the knowledge of department and charge of suppression etc., required for invoking extended period cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 1952 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85894/2023 - Dated:- 27-4-2023 - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms Padmavati Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Amrendra Kumar Jha, Deputy Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against order-in-original no. 34/RKS/CEX/PI/ 2012 dated 09.10.2012. By the Impugned order holding as follows: i) I confirm the demand of the Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs.71,87,040/-(Rupees Seventy One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Forty only), short-paid by the assessee on account of undervaluation of the said goods, under the provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) I drop the demand of the Central Excise duty, totally amounting to Rs.6,03,986/- (Rupees Six Lakh Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them following decision as per Rule 8. 2.1 By arriving as the value in accordance with CAS-4 issued by Institute of Cost Accountants of India. The show cause notice dated 03.05.2012 was issued for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 to the appellant proposing to revise the value of one of the component. Remanding duty of Rs. 77,91,026/- by enhancing value by incurring expenses incurred at office in Bangalore. 2.2 Show cause notice has been adjudicated as per the Impugned Order. Hence, this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri. Amrendra Kumar Jha, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent. 3.2 Arguing for the Appellant Learned Counsel submits that the entire period involved in this show cause notice issue is covered in earlier grounds of litigation in which Tribunal has vide order no. A/1008-1010/12/EB/C-II dated 10.10.2012 for the same period remanded the matter to the original authority for re-consideration vis- -vis to availability of receipt. As all the facts were in the knowledge of revenue in remand proceedings the matter has been determined in their favour. 3.3 Since, the matter is already covered by the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff and the same is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 at SR.No. 11. It is also submitted that the issue regarding admissibility of the benefit of the Notification was not before the adjudicating authority. 5. The contention of the Revenue in this regard is that this issue is not raised before the lower authority and it is taken first time before the Tribunal and it requires verification. 6. As the issue regarding benefit of Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 was not before the adjudicating authority, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to look into issue of benefit of Notification in respect of compound after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. 4.3 In the remand proceedings again Commissioner (Appeals) has determined the issue vide order-in-appeal no. PUN/EXCUS-001-APP-136-14- 15 dated 22.12.2014. Show Cause Notices proposing demand, interest and penalty as detailed below were issued. The show cause notices were adjudicated and the demands along with interest and equal penalty were confirmed, as under. The Orders-in-Original were upheld by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 3/2006-CE has been denied to Appellants on the sole ground that the claim of the benefit of the said notification was an afterthought as it was not claimed by the Appellants at the time of clearance. The eligibility of the product for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006-CE is otherwise not disputed. I find that the goods in question are covered at S. No. 11 of the Notification No. 3/2006-CE. The Notification provides unconditional exemption to all goods falling under chapter 1518 except margarine and similar other preparations. I find that the classification of the product under Chapter 1518 of the Central Excise Tariff is not disputed and it is also not the case of the Respondents that the goods are margarine or similar edible preparations. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification on merits. The fact that the benefit of the Notification was not claimed at the time of clearance of goods and is an afterthought, is not enough to deny the benefit to the Appellants, Non-claiming the benefit, which otherwise is legally available, cannot be the ground for denial of the same. While arriving at this d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
