2016 (2) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Mishra, DR For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Saharan (Advocate) ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: This is an appeal by Revenue against order dated 08.02.2007 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. The Respondent are engaged in the manufacture of bare as well as coated pipes of base metal, liable to Central Excise duty. They are availing cenvat credit on inputs and ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the demand of 17,43,688/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the Respondent. He also imposed an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs as penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 2. It is submitted by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the impugned order has examined all the issues raised by the Revenue and came to the correct findings. It was further submitted that the demand made is clearly time barred as correctly held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the records. 5. The issue involved is the correct quantification of 8% under Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or arriving at the value of exempted goods, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the payment of 8% made by the Respondent was with reference to sale value of the bare pipes and coating cost is as per the contract with the party. Hence, he held that the question of payment of 8% amount on the transportation cost would not arise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the demand is cl....