2006 (7) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing charges relating to the loading of the goods at the assessee's factory gate. These charges were borne by the buyer. The other element, which was not included in the assessable value of the goods, was the remuneration received by two employees of the buyer (HLL) for their quality control activity performed in the assessee's factory. After including these elements also in the assessable value of the goods, the original authority raised a demand of differential duty on the assessee, amounting to Rs. 1,70,277/-. As the assessee had not disclosed to the department the fact that they had not included the above elements in the assessable value of the goods, the larger period of limitation was invoked for demanding this duty on the basis of 'su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, we quickly dismiss this appeal of the Department inasmuch as it is settled law that no penalty can be imposed under a given provision of law for any period prior to the date on which the said provision was introduced. Section 11AC was enacted with effect from 28-9-96 without any retrospective effect and, therefore, no such penalty could have been imposed on the assessee for the period prior to the said date as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence appeal No. E/769/99 stands dismissed. 2. In the assessee's appeal, the main challenge is  against the demand of differential duty. The ld. Counsel submits that neither the salary of HLL's employees nor the loading charges was liable to be included in the assessable value of....