Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (6) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence and further investigation, demand notice was issued to the Appellant, alleging non-payment of Central Excise duty by issuing invoices in the name of a fictitious firm viz. M/s Tekni Enterprises. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant as well as Revenue filed appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While disposing the Revenues appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order of the Adjudicating authority resulting into denial of cum-duty-price benefit in the computation of duty liability. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Paritosh Gupta for the Appellant submitted that while den....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Assailing the said finding, the learned Advocate drew our attention to Annexure A to the Show Cause Notice, wherein the respective invoices along with the value of goods have been shown and the duty short paid had been quantified accordingly. Further, referring to the judgment of Meghdoot Gramudyog Sewa Sansthan (supra), it is argued that the benefit of cum-duty-price has been held to be admissible even in cases involving removal of goods clandestinely without payment of duty. It is their contention that after insertion of Explanation-II to Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the price charged to the Customer is deemed to be cum-duty-price. 7. We find that this Tribunal in the aforesaid case while analyzing the provisions old Sec. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. With effect from 14-5-2003, an important amendment was made to Section 4 by Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2003 by which an explanation was added to sub-section (1) of Section 4. The explanation added is as under :- "Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is a declared that the price cum-duty of the excisable goods sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional consideration, if any, flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods, and such price cum-duty, excluding sale tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid, shall be deemed to include the duty payable on such goods." Thus, in terms of this explan....