2017 (10) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... method as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, for arriving at the value of the goods cleared free as "Physician samples" and had accordingly discharged (lesser amount of) excise duty instead of correctly adopting the value as under Section 4 (1) (b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, during the said period. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated proposing recovery of differential duty for the periods 2002-03 (from 01.02.2003 to 31.03.2003), 2003-04 and 2004-05 and 2005-06 (01.04.05 to 30.04.05) which worked out to Rs. 85,91,184/- and Education Cess of Rs. 75,645/- with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were not included in arriving at the cost. (iv) Three SCN's were issued rejecting the refund application filed by the appellants. Subsequently the department vide OIO R-010/2006 dated 27.01.2006 rejected the refund. The department was fully aware of the facts of the case as early as in 2006 and there was no whisper of any short payment made. (v) The Commissioner vide Para 22 had confirmed the demand for a period of 5 days from 25.04.2005 to 30.04.2005 on account of the Circular being in effect and the refund applications not covering that period which is bad in law. (vi) There is no clear finding to justify as to how the extended period of limitation has been invoked in the instant case in view of the fact that the department was f....