2009 (10) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g their visit on 23-12-2003, the preventive officers noticed the debit notes. They alleged that the debit notes were for collection of excess value of goods sold and demanded Central Excise Duty on the value of Rs. 1,91,506/-. The appellant explained that the amount of Rs. 1,91,506/- represented transport charges, paid by the appellant on behalf of the customers, as requested by the upcountry customers to arrange transportation at customer's cost. However, the officers paid no heed and the appellant had to credit Rs. 24,308/- on the same day that is 23-12-2003. This payment was made during investigation itself and before issuance of S.C.N. dated 16-2-2005. The Assistant Commissioner issued S.C.N, dated 16-2-2005 asking for payment of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f visit to their factory by the preventive officers on their directions. The concerned S.C.N. was issued on 16-2-2005. The appellant challenged the S.C.N. and finally the Assistant Commissioner dropped the S.C.N. and the proceedings, under his O.I.O. No. 123/07 dated 22-11-2007. The Ld. Counsel of the appellant relied on para 83 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) and claimed that in the circumstances stated above, the amount is to be treated as paid under protest and limitation of Section 11B is not applicable. Para 83 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries, supra has observed as under : "It is difficult to imagine that a manuf....