9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tap Saraswat, Director of the appellant respectively, to assail the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun [Commissioner (Appeals)] for remanding the matter back to the original authority for the re-working the duty liability after extending the cum-duty value benefit. As the impugned order is common, both the appeals are being considered in one common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with the Central Excise Department and were engaged in manufacture of Plywood, Block Board, Flush Door etc. The appellant at the material time was availing the benefit of the area based exemption under the provisions of the Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CE as amended. He contended that as the nearby units of the area had been granted the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, therefore, the appellant had also claimed the said exemption. The learned counsel further submitted that they had contested the matter regarding their eligibility to exemption upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From December 2009 onwards, the appellant had not charged excise duty from their customers as they were under the bonafide belief that they were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.6.2003. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed their plea for grant of area based exemption. Consequently, he contended that as the appellant has to pay duty on final product for wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AC (1) (a) of the Act. He prayed that the penalty under Section 11AC (1) (a) of the Act may be set-aside. He relied on the following judgments:- (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus Pepsi Foods Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 481 (S.C.)] (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III versus Vee Gee Faucets Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015 (329) E.L.T. 76 (P & H) [2015 (329) ELT 76 (P&H)] (c) Jaiswal Steel Processing versus Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 159 (Chhattisgarh) [2014 (306) ELT 159 (Chhattisgarh)] 3.3 As regards the imposition of penalty on the Director, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant Director was under the bonafide belief that the appellant was entitled to area based exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that an identical issue pertaining to the previous period has been decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 51158-51167/2022 dated 08.12.2022. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter:- "11. Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of recalculation of demand on cum- duty basis in accordance with explanation to Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act. We find that admittedly appellant have not collected Central Excise duty in addition to the sale price, in view of their claim of Area based exemption. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to benefit of calculation of duty on cum-duty-price. 12. We further hold in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
