TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty liability for each consignment subject to maintenance of reconcilation statements of such debits. On audit, discrepancies were noticed for the period from January 1994 to February 1998 and duty of Rs. 39,74,168/- computed on short-levied was deposited under protest on 17th December, 1997. 3. Vide show cause notice dated 12th August 1998, Rs. 45,91,24,705.26 for the period from July 1993 to February 1998 was demanded. The impugned order no.09/COMMR/2006 dated 28th September 2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirmed demand of Rs. 34,62,23,989.89 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, alongwith applicable interest thereon, while imposing penalty of Rs. 13,10,18,286/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the assessee and penalties of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on three officials. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants are before the Tribunal. 4. Drawing attention to the adjudication order, it is the contention of Learned Senior Counsel that materials collected on verification ordered after conclusion of personal hearing has been used to their detriment without placing them....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l'94 6190349 2053439.77 May'94 9582303.72 4775896.54 June'94 5409452.05 2581959.62 July'94 3642310.77 3533011.88 August'94 3051123.97 2356478.65 September'94 5709564.91 2839564.15 October'94 1987507.52 788595.9 November'94 5122849.62 937429.58 December'94 4945229.53 2309366.18 January'95 2326112.45 1953198.23 February'95 2527539.64 483129.53 March'95 6080711.03 6276443.51 April'95 9154227.58 2586499.33 May'95 5628230.31 1050611.25 June'95 16362758.61 706855.03 July'95 7610304.17 0 August'95 6403656.67 0 September'95 6732696.33 0 October'95 5196020.66 312526.32 November'95 6288475.89 519674.85 December'95 5342491.85 0 January'96 11258235.88 207456.75 Febuary'96 4231272.29 33070.6 March'96 9777717.67 691727.38 April'96 1683526.5 331063.4 May'96 1931471.71 251241.45 June'96 3735356.3 277204.77 July'96 3242441.07 1032504.01 August'96 4764705.34 130547.9 September'96(Upto 27/09/1996) 1717681.99 389523.43 Sub-total (A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a couple of invoices. This was not permissible. We have given careful consideration to these arguments of the assessee. We are in agreement with the assessee on this point. We have already held that in order to quantify the duty due, transaction value has to be ascertained in respect of each removal. In the case of Cera Boards & Doors (supra), this Bench held in a similar case of undervaluation as follows :- "11.12 As regards the period after 1-7-2000 for valuation, the concept of 'transaction value' has been introduced. In the concept of transaction value, each transaction is important. Therefore, the transaction value is to be determined for the clearances after 1-7-2000. As far as the period after 1-7-2000 is concerned, the value for assessable purpose is the transaction value. The transaction value is the value for each transaction. The concept of transaction value is entirely different from the concept of normal value. While the normal value can be notional, the transaction value is the actual amount transacted in respect of the goods. Of course, under certain circumstances, the transaction value has to be determined in accordance with the Rules. Anyhow, we would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quantity is more than the quantity cleared from the factory, there is short payment of duty. The appellant took up this matter with the local jurisdictional authorities and ultimately with the C.B.E.C. On this point the C.B.E.C. issued detailed circular dated 23-9-99 setting out the procedure to be adopted by all steel plants. Paras 2.4 & 2.5 of the Circular indicating the course of action to be taken by the assessee is reproduced below. "2.4 A copy of the Plant-wise/Tariff Head-wise account as well as the statement of Excess/Shortages based on Wagon Close indicator or similar indicator, relating to a financial year, will be submitted by the stockyards/depots to their Jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by 31st May of the subsequent financial year. A summary of the position for all the Stockyards/Depots would be made plant-wise and sent to the respective plants for submission to the plants Jurisdictional Range office within 45 days (i.e. by 15th July). In case there is any net excess quantity, the plants will make the excise duty payment at the rate of duty existing on the last day of that financial year or that the highest rate prevalent during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be extended to earlier period. 5. The approach of the Commissioner is totally negative. A circular detailing the procedure to solve certain practical accounting problems is issued at a highest level by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. When such a circular was issued on the initiative of the appellants, the adjudicating authority was not correct in ignoring the same. The appellants have stated that while the duty demanded on the alleged excess quantity of Rs. 36,269.415 MT is Rs. 4,82,79,280/-, the duty paid on shortage is Rs. 6,51,55,344/-. In other words, the appellants have paid duty of Rs. 1,68,76,064/- in excess. If the principle enunciated in Board Circular is followed, the appellants would be entitled to carry forward the excess payment. In view of our observations, there is no justification for imposing any penalty. We hold that the Board's circular is applicable even to the present case and the excess and shortage have to be adjusted. Therefore, we set aside the order and remand the matter to the original authority for applying Board circular and determine the liability. In case there is excess payment of duty, the same should be carried forward for the....