2016 (9) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant Shri Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent ORDER Brief facts are as under: a. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes, hot rolled strips etc. Central Excise Audit team visited the premises of the appellants and verified the records in 2003 and thereafter, an audit note was issued in 31.01.2005, which inter alia raised question of incl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... differential duty of Rs. 2,72,507/- on the ground that though the appellants have received an additional consideration amounting to Rs. 58,54,151/-, however, they have discharged duty liability only on Rs. 41,17,675/-. On this ground, recovery was proposed to demand differential duty payable by the appellant with respect to additional consideration received towards collection charges during the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 29.09.2007 and such the demand is barred by limitation. 3.  On behalf of department, the Ld. AR, Nagaraj Naik contended that the audit note cannot be taken as conclusive and that even the appellants paid the amount only in March 2006. For these reasons, the department was well within its right to invoke extended period. 4.  We have heard both sides and gone through the appeal reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1909 38 5 2005- 2006-07 Rate Difference 1,17,687 - 1,17,687 18830 377     Total 58,54,151 41,71,675 16,82,476 2,69, 196 3,311   6.  The addition of collection charges, weighment difference and rate difference are very much in the nature of additional consideration and hence required to be included in the assesa....