TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared for the Respondent ORDER Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2009 in terms of which demand of AED(ST) amounting to Rs. 61,77,847/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also imposed. The said demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellant had received semi finished fabrics from its sister unit at Jalgaon under cover of inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and was availing of Notification No. 17/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 in terms of which the aggregate rate of duty is 16% ad-valorem and as per para 2 of the said notification this duty is to be apportioned equally between the duty leviable under Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Additional Duty of Excise (ST). Accordingly, when the invoices were received, the duty element shown in the invoices was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices as an afterthought. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. 5. We find that the sample invoice placed at page 21 of the appeal papers does indicate the duty payment against basic excise duty @ 16% ad valorem. However, we also find that the entire duty paid is apportione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 17/2000-CE which clearly states that this duty is to be apportioned equally between BED & AED(ST) (para 2 of the Notification refers). It is a fact that the notification was issued on 01.03.2000 and prescribed an aggregate duty of 16% ad valorem and possibly for that reason the invoices issued in the month of March 2000 itself showed the aggregate duty of 16% ad valorem and were stamped with ....