By-product valuation and extended limitation sustain duty and interest, while prior payment justifies reduction of penalty.

Differential duty on methanol retained as a by-product was upheld where the assessee ed the duty liability and did not contest the valuation basis, with the retained quantity treated as additional consideration. The plea of limitation failed because earlier proceedings for a subsequent period and departmental knowledge did not bar invocation of the extended period in the present matter. Duty and interest were sustained, while the penalty under Section 11AC was moderated because the duty had already been paid long before issuance of notice, leading to reduction of the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the differential duty demand on the basis of the value of methanol retained as a by-product was sustainable, whether the plea of time bar could defeat the demand or the penalty, and whether the penalty under Section 11AC required interference.

Analysis: The appellants accepted the duty liability and did not dispute the valuation basis adopted by the department. The dispute before the Tribunal was confined to limitation for the purpose of penalty. The earlier notice for a subsequent period, issued within the normal period, did not prevent invocation of the extended period for the present proceedings. The fact that the department had knowledge from earlier proceedings did not curtail the statutory extended limitation. Since the assessee had not contested the duty liability and the by-product retained free of cost was treated as an element of additional consideration, the demand of duty and the liability to interest were upheld. At the same time, the fact that the duty had already been paid long before the notice warranted relief in the quantum of penalty.

Conclusion: The plea of time bar was rejected, the confirmation of duty and interest was sustained, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs.

---