TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consumers in some cases and through their two shops (one in Mumbai and the other in Delhi) in other cases. Two show-cause notices were issued to the assessee, one dated 6.3.2003 and the other dated 2.5.2003, demanding duty on certain grounds and proposing penalties. The demand of duty and other proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the learned Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the proposals raised in the second show-cause notice. The aforesaid demand of duty came to be confirmed in adjudication of the first show-cause notice dated 6.3.2003. 2. The assessee was not registered with the department as they claimed exemption from such registration being a small scale industrial unit. They also did not pay duty on their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period 1.4.2001 to 8.3.2002 was done by the adjudicating authority without regard to Exemption Notification No.12/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, which provided for total exemption from payment of duty of excise in respect of goods falling under SH 6201.00, other than those bearing, or sold under, a registered brand name. Para 3(a) of SSI Exemption Notification No.8/2001-CE stipulated that clearances which were exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon (other than an exemption based on quantity or value of clearances) under any other Notification were not to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption for purposes of SSI exemption. The learned Commissioner ought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the adjudicating authority. 4. However, after hearing both sides, we note that there are calculation mistakes in the impugned order vide para 19 of the order which contains a tabulated statement of the net duty payable. There is no dispute with regard to the period from 1998-99 to 2000-01 discussed in this tabulated statement. The dispute is with regard to the calculations done in respect of the financial year 2001-02. This part of the Commissioner's statement is reproduced below:- IV 2001-2002 Annexure - 'D-1' to 'D4' to the SCN dated 6.3.2003 - Value of the clearances of goods falling under CSH No. 6201.00 on the basis of retail price. (Readymade Garment + Sarees) Rs.3,28,98,238.00 -Assessable value (Being 60% of the retail price) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods for the period from 1st to 8th March 2002 was only 12% by virtue of Notification No.15/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The learned counsel fairly concedes, in this context, that this Notification was not cited before the adjudicating authority by the assessee. We have heard the learned SDR also in this connection, who acknowledges the fact that the effective rate of duty for the goods falling under Heading 62.01 during the aforesaid short period was only 12%. After considering the submissions, we note that the errors pointed out by the counsel in the tabulated statement of the adjudicating authority (vide para 19 of the impugned order) call for rectification. 5. With regard to the submissions made by the counsel regarding the stock of goo....