9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves. ORDER PER: P. ANJANI KUMAR These applications for rectification of mistake have been filed by the applicants, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., pleading that there was mistake apparent on record in the Final Order No. 60414-60415/2024 dated 09.07.2024 in respect of Appeal Nos. E/3752/2012 & E/3762/2012. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the appellant has pleaded for allowing cum-duty benefit and the same was duly recorded in the Final Order in Para No. 4; however, while the passing the final order, the benefit was not extended though the demand was confirmed for the normal period. She further submits that it is a settled law that cum-duty benefit is to be allowed as held in the following case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. On going through the final order passed by this Bench, we find that the appellants have made a request for extending benefit of cum-duty; it appears that the request was not analyzed and no finding on the same was given in the said order. To that extent, we find that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the records due to oversight which requires to be corrected. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant's own case (supra) held that: 6. It will be useful here to refer to the observations of this Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 1978 (4) SCC 271, at page 280, as follows: "Take for example, excise duty payable by a dealer who is a manufacturer. When he sells goods manufactured by him, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold and has not sought to realise any sum in addition to the price obtained by it from the purchaser. The purchaser was under no obligation to pay any amount in excess of what had already been paid as the price of the scrap. 8. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in directing that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises & Salt Act. 6. We also find that this Bench in the case of Zircon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that: 8. Regarding the cum-duty price, we find that the Department relies upon the decision in the case of Amrit Agros (supra). The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the decision in the above case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Bata India Limited- 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) is applicable. We find that this being a matter of fact, needs to be decided on case to case basis. The respondents have produced the copies of the invoices issued by them. The sample invoices show the total assessable value at a lower level say "X"; right of CENVAT and CENVAT paid are shown at NIL rate; CST/ GST @ 1% are included along with freight; thus, the total invoice price is "Y", which is equivalent to "X" plus CST/ GST plus freight charges. Therefore, it is to be understood that the CENVAT duty is not paid and is not recovered. For example, in case of Invoice No. 000047 dated 19.05.2004, total assessable value is shown at Rs. 6,30,000/- after adding CST/ G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
