2014 (9) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1944 when appellant paid the short levy voluntarily without being pointed out by the Revenue. 2. Shri P.M. Dave (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant cleared a Coal Mill System, falling under CETH 8479.90 to Gujarat Electricity Board and Maharashtra Pradesh Electricity Board during the period involved and a royalty @ 6.5% on material cost charged by the appellant was not included in the assessable value. That appellant voluntarily paid differential duty on 22-12-2000 and 17-5-2001. That Department started inquiring into the case only as per statement dated 2-8-2001 of Shri Bindesh Indravadan Shah and Shri Nityanand N. Dhokakia, Excise Officer and the General Manager (Co-ordination) of the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld by Commissioner (Appeals) as per OIA dated 15-3-2005, in view of the following case laws :-  (i)      CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. [2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB)] (ii)    CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. [2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P&H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P&H)] 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. In this appeal the disputed amount of differential duty was pertaining to the period prior to 11-5-2001 when unamended Section 11AB was applicable. Sub-section (2) of Section 11AB after amendment and effective from 11-5-2001 also had a clause that nothing contained in the amended Section will apply to cases where duty had become payable or ought to ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (Appeals) vide OIA Nos. 14 to 15/2005 (14 to 15 A-II)CE/HB/Commr(A), dated 22-2-2005 issued on 15-3-2005. Revenue did not accept this order of the first appellate authority and filed appeal No. E/1723/2005. The said appeal was remanded back to the adjudicating authority under CESTAT Order No. A/2657/WZB/AHD, dated 24-11-2008 to examine imposition of Section 11AC penalty, after given opportunity to the other side, in view of Dharamendra Textile Processors case [2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB = 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. A clarificatory order dated 20-4-2009 was also issued by this Bench under Order No. M/515/WZB/AHD/2009 (Appeal No. E/1723/2005) that only the issue of interest on duty demanded is remanded back to the adjudicating authority. Und....