TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Pipes, Aurangabad. The charge against the appellant was that during the year 1995-96 and 1996-97, the appellant crossed the small scale exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and they did not discharge the excise duty liability. The excess clearances for the year 1995-96 was found to be Rs. 35,73,012/- and for the year 1996-97 the same was found to be Rs. 43,85,973/-. As per the notification, the full exemption limit is Rs. 30 lakhs. Clearances in excess of Rs. 30 lakhs and not exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs was subject to a concessional rate of duty of normal duty minus 5% and clearances in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs was subject to normal rate. The normal rate of duty was 15% ad valorem. Therefore, for the clearances in excess of Rs. 30 lakhs but not excee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is required to be recovered from the appellant and also imposed an equivalent penalty. He also held that on the recomputed duty liability, interest is also liable to be recovered from the appellant. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. 3.1 In the present case, the computation of duty demand is erroneous. The appellant had been supplying the goods initially on delivery challans and thereafter they raised commercial invoices for the sale of the goods. The duty demands have been computed taking into account the amounts mentioned both in delivery challans as also in the commercial invoices and thus, there is a duplication of demand. According to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions came into the statute book only with effect from 28-9-1996, whereas the demand in the present case relates to 1995-96 and 1996-97. Therefore, for the period before 28-9-1996, the provisions of Section 11AC would not apply. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that the claim of the appellant towards transportation charges was already allowed by the adjudicating authority wherein he has observed that "originally the duty was calculated as Rs. 10,74,667/- but after considering the transportation it was reduced to Rs. 9,89,222/-." Similarly, the appellate authority has also granted abatement towards the sales tax payable in the impugned order. 4.1 As regards the cum-t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 As regards the first contention raised by the appellant that there is duplication of demand by computing the value of clearances twice, there is no evidence produced before us in support of this contention. In any case, from the records, the appellant themselves have admitted to a duty liability to Rs. 6,27,728/- in their reply dated 26-3-1999 and a reduced liability of Rs. 5,21,149.25 in their reply dated 24-9-1999. Thus, the appellant have been adopting changing stands in their replies, but the fact remains that the appellant did exceed the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and did not discharge the excise duty liability. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary led....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able on loading charges which the appellant had claimed as abatement while computing the taxable value. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that loading charges form part of assessable value and excise duty would be leviable and the loading charges so collected should be treated as cum-duty tax. In Srichakra Tyres Ltd. case, the facts of the case were that the appellant cleared tyres on the sale price declared by them. Later on price revisions were effected upwards but they did not discharge the additional duty liability on the enhanced prices collected from the customers. In the context of duty demand on the enhanced price, that is, the revised price collected minus the original price on which the duty was raised, the question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion is when the assessee does not comply with the statutory provisions for availing of credit, can he claim the benefit? This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions. Only two cases are required to be mentioned here. First case is CCE, New Delhi v. Harichand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and the second Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., v. CCE, Vadodara - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In both these cases a question arose whether duty exemption would be available in case the procedure for claiming the exemption was not followed by the assessee. In both these cases, the appellant had substantially complied with the conditions of exemption and the only lapse committed by them was not following t....