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

....under Section 11AB of the Central Excise 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 Gener....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o his case that extended period is applicable in this case, as upheld 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The same was set aside by Commissioner (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 is....