2002 (9) TMI 669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der-in-Original No. 8/2000, dt. 10-3-2000 decided by the Addl. Commissioner. Copies of the application were sent to all the three respondents in this case i.e., M/s. Cochin Fasteners, Trichur, M/s. Western Wire & Wire Products, Trichur and M/s. Bengal Metals, Trichur. These three respondents have in turn filed memorandum of cross-objections against the said application. 2. I have considered the contents of the Review Order No. 3/2000, dt. 8-1-2000, the memorandum of cross-objections filed by all the three respondents, the Order-in-original and all other relevant records. Before taking up the application filed by the Department under Sec. 35E, I propose to take up first the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the three respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellate Tribunal and not before Commissioner (Appeals). That is why the words "so far as may be" have been used in that sub-section. This also follows from the reading of the CEGAT Rules 15 and 15A which specifically provide for filing of cross-objections before the Appellate Tribunal and which are to be treated as appeal. No such provisions exists under the Central Excise (Appeal) Rules, 2001. Further, cross-objections are to be filed after due verification in the proper form and these proper forms are EA-4 and CA-4. These forms are meant for Appellate Tribunal only and no such forms have been prescribed for cross-objections (to be taken as cross appeal) before the Commissioner (Appeals). Lastly, it may be seen that neither Section 35 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. The second point relates to the total value of clearances has been treated as cum-duty value. It is a case of Department that such clearance values should not have been treated a cum-duty value. The law is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. [ 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] has held that such sale prices have be considered as cum-duty price. Therefore, the submission made has no substance. 5. The third and fourth submissions in the Review Order relate to the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and chargeability of interest under Section 11AB. It is the case of the Department under the Review Order that for the amount of duty confirmed, equal amount of penalty should have been imposed....