TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. and deemed credit was denied, interest was also imposed and various penalties have been imposed on the appellant and co-appellants namely Shri Randhir Sharma, Shri Kashmir Singh Mehra and Shri Rapinder Pal Singh Arora. 2. The brief facts of the case are as M/s. Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd., the main appellant in this case is an independent textile processor and undertakes processing of fabrics on job work basis for merchant manufacturers. The department received information that they were clearing processed fabrics by paying duty on assessable value determined under cost construction method wherein the job charges shown were less than what was actually recovered from the merchant manufacturers thereby evading payment of excise duty. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, 2001 to March, 2004 under the provisions of para 6 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002. The show-cause notice was also proposed to recover wrongly availed excess deemed credit of Rs. 45,51,113/- on the clearance of fabrics in respect of which the job charges were mis-declared. He also confirmed interest on the amount short paid under Section 11AB and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC. The learned Commissioner further dis-allowed the "deemed credit" amounting to Rs. 90,89,899/- availed by the assessee under the provisions of Section 11A(1) read with Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the job worker + job charges. Further in the instruction issued on 19.2.2002 the Board had reiterated the same in the light of the hon'ble apex court's decision in the case of Ujagar Prints. However, in-spite of these clear directions, the Mumbai III Commissionerate kept on insisting to load trade/job work charges by 15%. Therefore, it has to be noted that excess valuation has arisen as per the directions of the department. When the department alleges short levy of duty due to non-inclusion of processing charges in certain transactions, they cannot shut their eyes towards the excess payments collected by them on the very same transactions which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, such excess payments have to be necessari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on which duty is payable after ignoring the 15% profit margin and 2% additional shrinkage as it is a case of valuation as per the process undertaken by the appellant and some calculations were overlooked by the appellant. The adjudicating authority chose not to follow directions of the Tribunal. 4. Mainly for the reasons that after the processing is over the fabrics were inspected by the customers, certain aspects were noticed and in order to rectify the defects, they undertook additional processing such as rotary, peaching or zero zero etc. and job charges for these processing carried out and went unnoticed by the dealing clerk. Which mean that the job charges were not included in the assessable value due to mistake and there was no in....