AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted. MAs are disposed. 2. The Appeal is taken up for hearing. This is second round of litigation before Tribunal. The issue relates to demand of differential duty of Rs. 5,15,605/- on Scented Supari Betel Nut Powder falling under Chapter 2107 manufactured and cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Show cause notice dt. 6.8.98 was issued and the adjudicating authority in his OIO dt. 30.11.98 confirmed the differential duty on the higher price collected as per commercial invoice. In the first round, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,75,728.66 under Section 11AC and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into consideration the slab rate which is applicable for value of clearances. If the slab rate was taken into consideration, the differential duty was worked out to Rs. 3,75,741/-. She submits that along with written submissions they have also filed the table worksheet vide Annexures I to VI showing differential value and differential duty as per their calculation vis-a-vis value quoted in the SCN. 3.2 On limitation, she submits that there is no suppression of facts. She drew our attention to pages 9, 10, 11 of the paper book wherein they have informed the Superintendent of Central Excise, VIII-C Range, Madras vide letter dt. 20.11.95 as to how excise duty has been paid taking into account the deductions claimed as trade discount, turn ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE Chennai 1999 (114) ELT 695 (Tribunal) (4) CCE Meerut Vs Nulon India Ltd. 2000 (120) ELT 346 (Tribunal) (5) CCE Mumbai Vs S. Narender Kumar & Co. 2011 (267) ELT 577 (S.C) (6) Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE Bhubaneswar -2011 (264) ELT 14 (SC) [on limitation] 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the findings. He submits that the issue of manufacture and excisability was not raised either before the adjudicating authority nor appellate authority and not disputed even after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement, they continued to pay duty and also filed classification list and price lists. They cannot raise a new ground before the Tribunal whereas the present case is only on the demand of differential duty on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower appellate authority. On the issue of limitation and suppression of facts, on perusal of letter dt. 15.11.1995, issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent Central Excise, Range III-C Madras, we find that the Superintendent sought clarification for the appellant on variation in the invoice price and deductions claimed by the appellant. The Range Superintendent has clearly asked for details stating that price collected from the buyer is determined as Rs. 237.22 whereas the assessable value has been worked out as Rs. 194.06. We find from letter dt. 20.11.95 that appellant submitted a detailed reply to the jurisdictional Superintendent explaining the deductions claimed by them and how assessable value has been arrived at. On a perusal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice was contested by the appellant was on the point of limitation. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that appellant s activities were detected by the revenue on 24-8-1987 and show cause notice was issued on 4th December, 1989. 5. On the previous date of hearing, we adjourned this case to enable the counsel for the revenue to seek instructions as to why the show cause notice was issued after two years and 4 months approximately of the inspection carried out by the authorities. Counsel appearing for the revenue informs us that file is misplaced and is not traceable. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without laying any proposition of law, we hold that the department was not justified in invo....