TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty 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 includability of amount collected towards colle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 period from September 2002 to March 2007. b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation. 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 records 5. As per the Annexure to the SCN,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 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 assesable value for the discharge of excise duty. 7. Coming to limitation, the audit of appellant was conducted in 9/2003 and audit note also is issued on 31.01.2005. The quantifying the collection charges....