TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants have been represented by the ld. Advocate Dr. Prabhat Kumar and the Revenue has been represented by ld. AR Shri Amresh Jain. 4. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi has confirmed the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,23,69,254/- along with interest; and equivalent penalty has also been imposed on the main appellant M/s Wenger and Company and additional penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri Atul Tandon, partner of the appellant No. 1, M/s Wenger and Company. 5. The ld. Advocate Dr. Prabhat Kumar on behalf of the appellants at the strength of written submission submits that: (A) The valuation and denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003: (i) Retail prices charged to custome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of Central Excise, Madras 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC). (c) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC). (d) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE- 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). (e) CCE, Mumbai Vs. Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (216) ELT 3 (SC). (f) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut- 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC). (g) CC, Mumbai Vs. M.M.K. Jewellers 2008 (225) ELT 3 (SC). (C) Levy of penalty: (i) The appellant did not wilfully contravene any provisions of Central Excise law; there is no mens rea, therefore, no penalty is imposable. (ii) Reliance is placed on the following cases: (a) 2005 (187) ELT 489 P.V. Ukkru International Trade Vs. CC, Cochin. (b) 2005 (182) ELT 59 CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Pilot Products. (c) 2005 (18)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE 2001 (134) ELT 173 (Tri.-Kolkata). It is to be noted that value has been defined in Explanation (c) to the Notification No. 8/2003 (supra); therefore, total turnover to decide on eligibility is to claim benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 (supra) to be computed by totalling the value of specified goods only. 8.1.2 It was pleaded by the assessee/appellant that Revenue has taken retail price in transaction value without giving them the benefit of abatement. The submission of the assessee for giving them the benefit of abatement is correct; and assessable value of excisable items being manufactured by the assessee/appellant is to be arrived at after giving them the benefit of abatement. The ld. Advocate for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to allow suitable deductions from the retails price as per Rule 6(9) of Valuation Rules. The assessee has also been filing regular returns with the department on the goods manufactured. Consequently, it is established that there has not been any suppression of facts or wilful misstatement on the part of the appellants. Therefore, for the present facts law of Central Excise does not permit the Revenue to invoke extended period of limitation. In other words, Deptt. cannot issue demand for the period beyond one year from the relevant date, which is the date of Show Cause Notice (SCN). Therefore, demand for the period beyond one year is set aside and demand for the period of one year preceding the relevant date which is 29.12.2006, the date o....