TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposed penalty of Rs. 39,07,083/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Issue in dispute is the legality and propriety of demand of duty on transportation charges which assessee claims to have included in the assessable value at the place of removal but not conceded by the adjudicating authority who has, in consequence, ordered recovery of the differential for the period from January 1997 to December 1998. An incidental issue is the adjustment of duty due against excess paid during the period from July 1998 to December 1998. 3. The backdrop of this dispute is the change brought about in section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 by Finance Act, 1996 expanding the scope of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rehouse at Taloja. It is their further claim that, in accordance with directions issued by central excise authorities, they had, in their letter of 15th October 1996, agreed to include freight and insurance incurred on the goods moved to the warehouse and that, by letter dated 5th December 1996, the payment of differential duty for the period upto 31st October 1996 was intimated as also their intention to include freight and insurance upto the depot in the assessable value with effect from 1st November 1996. Copies of these correspondence has been placed before us. 5. On behalf of the appellant. Learned Counsel also furnished the excise invoices pertaining to clearance from the factory in which it is clearly stated that duty collected on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstead of having been, suo moto, adjusted towards duty due on subsequent consignments that should have been paid in full. The second component of demand in the same notice pertains to the freight and insurance itemised separately in the invoice raised on customers which, according to the authority issuing the notice, was also liable to be included in the assessable value for the period from January 1997 to December 1998. 7. Learned Authorized Representative has cited a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, of different High Courts and of the Tribunal to support the impugned order. Learned Counsel too has not lagged in citing as many decisions. Both have relied upon the decision in re Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd [2002 (146) ELT 49....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder also refers to the show cause notice dated 4th February 2002 leading to the order impugned before us. It is conceded in the findings recorded in the finalisation order that duty was being paid since July 1998 at the factory gate using average standard price with the differential amount remitted at the end of the month. It also states unambiguously that the period of alleged adjustment covered in the notice of February 2002 has, perforce, to be excluded from the finalisation order owing to the issue of a show cause notice that is subsequent to the notice of December 1998 leading to the finalisation order. 10. The significant challenge to the confirmation of demand in the impugned order is that of the bar of limitation. The show cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....best, be considered a technical lapse. 12. The second issue covers the period from January 1997 to December 2008 and pertains to non-payment of duty on the freight and insurance recovered from customers. Our analysis supra indicates that freight and insurance incurred upto the depot has been included in the assessable value for payment of duty on clearance from the factory. It is only the freight recovered from the customers for delivery at their premises that is itemised separately and not included in the assessable value. Though the notice was issued after the transformation of assessable value to 'transaction value', the period covered is the era of 'normal price'. In terms of amendment of 'place of removal' with effect from 28th Septem....