TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,54,535/- has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that appellant has recovered the set-off claimed under Notification No. 432/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 from the customers in the invoices. Another demand of Rs. 30,88,632/- has also been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that set-off recovered from the customers is an additional consideration to be added to the assessable value under Finance Act, 1994. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) and Shri Rakesh Shah (Senior Manager) appeared on behalf of the appellant for personal hearing. Learned advocate argued during hearing and in the written submissions that the set-off claimed under Notification No. 432/86-CE dated 06.08.1986 is also a payment of duty and has been corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5) ELT 70 (T)] 2.1 Learned advocate also argued that demand has been issued after a period of one year therefore, the same is time-bared in view of the following case laws:- (a) CC vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Limited - [1996 (86) ELT 144 (Tri.)] (b) Commissioner vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Limited - [2000 (119) ELT A-177 (SC)] (c) CCE vs. Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Limited - [2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj.)] (d) Thandava Co-operative Sugars Limited - 2006 (205) ELT 1020 (Tri. Bang.)] (e) Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chem. Limited - [2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot the duty payable on the finished goods. Therefore, appellant has recovered excess amount from the customers and recovered the same as an element of Central Excise duty in the invoices. The entire amount shown on the gate passes has been recovered through the invoices therefore, the amount recovered represents the amount recovered in the guise of Central Excise duty and is correctly recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also argued by the AR that excess amount recovered from the customers is an additional consideration under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and differential duty of Rs. 30,88,632/- has been correctly confirmed against the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the final products specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table. TABLE S. No. Sub-Heading No. Description of inputs Chapter No. Description of final products 1. 2707.40 Naphthalene 29 Dye intermediates 2. 2707.40 Naphthalene 30 Pharmaceutical products 3. 2707.40 Naphthalene 32 Pigments, Synthetic Organic dyestuff 4. 2707.40 Naphthalene 29, 34, or 38 Leather tanning agents [Notification No. 432/86-C.E., Dated 06-08-1986] 4.1 It is observed from the above notification that the same is issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and exempts certain final produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is correctly held as recoverable by the adjudicating authority. The judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of M/s. Alcobox Metals (P) Limited vs. CCE Jaipur (supra) relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no indication in the said judgment that the set-off as claimed by the appellant in that case was recovered from the customers as is the fact in the present proceedings. 5. So far as time-bar nature of the demand is concerned, learned AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Limited - [2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj.)] in support of his argument that no time limit for recovery is prescribed under Section 11D and ....