TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Malt Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (AMMPL), Alwar (Rajasthan ) and Major O.P. Yadav, Managing Director of both the aforesaid Pvt. Ltd. companies (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) have filed applications for settlement of their case relating to show cause notice dated 25-1-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). The applications have been registered with the Principal Bench of the Commission under SA(E) Nos. 86/2001 to 88/2001, dated 3-8-2001. The proceeding relating to the aforesaid show cause notice are pending for adjudication with the Commissioner. In their application, the applicant admitted a total duty liability of Rs. 68,27,883/- as against the demand of Rs. 78,32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act. (b) Central Excise duty of Rs. 71,780/- was demanded on the stock found short. The said duty was already paid, hence, it was proposed to appropriate the same. (c) Imposition of penalty equal to duty determined under Section 11AC of the Act. (d) Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). (e) Levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act on the duty determined. (f) Deny the SSI exemption availed by the two companies, vide Notification Nos. 1/93, dated 28-2-93; 16/97, dated 1-4-97; 8/98, dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of duty payable will be Rs. 77,90,046/- if the price is not considered as Cum Duty Price and Rs. 68,28,902/-, if the price is considered as a cum duty price. 5. The applications were heard for final disposal on 7-5-2002. The Advocate for the applicant informed the Bench that their application relates to two units, both engaged in manufacturing of Barley Malt. The two units were registered separately with the Central Excise Department as SSI units and are availing SSI benefits. He informed the Bench that the facilities of one unit was utilized by the other for some time, but the appropriate duty of Excise was not paid and both the units were separately availing SSI benefits. He also admitted that the financial compensation was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd and Others - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2002 (49) RLT 1 (S.C.) was submitted to the Bench. 5.2 The Advocate, however, stated that the Department is demanding full duty on the clearances made by the two units without giving them benefit of cum duty price. The Advocate further requested that the Bench may consider their case for grant of immunities. 5.3 The Representative of Revenue informed the Bench that the benefit of cum duty price may not be extended to the applicants as the decision in the case of M/s. Srichakra Tyres [2002 (142) E.L.T. A279 (S.C.)] has not been accepted by the Department. Further, he requested that as the applicants have intentionally evaded excise duty they should not only b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after deducting the element of Excise Duty. The Supreme Court upheld the view of the CEGAT. It is clear in the present case that the price charged by the applicant to its customers was the sole consideration for sale and the Revenue have not shown that any additional amount has been recovered towards the sale price of the goods. In view of the above, the benefit of cum duty price and abatement of duty was there under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act is legally available to the applicant. 7. We are of the view that this is a case involving interpretation of the relevant provisions rather than a case of fraud or forgery or clandestine removal. There are a number of facts in favour of the applicant and the only ground against them is tha....