TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant. 2. In of the above, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 14.1.2008 alleging undervaluation of their goods and proposing to confirm the demand to the extent of Rs. 8,32,320/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty in respect of the goods cleared during the period April 2004 to September 2007. 3. The appellant contested the said demand on the issue of time bar and submitted that the duty of Rs. 2,49,600/- for the period April 2004 to Jan. 2007 was barred by limitation. They submitted that there was no suppression on their part inasmuch as the Revenue was aware of the stock transfer of the goods to their Vadodara unit and the duty required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art of the appellant to suppress the value of their final product or to evade any payment of duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Greaves Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad - 2015 (322) ELT 772 (SC) and CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Asarwa Mills - 2015 (329) ELT 216 (SC), has held that the issue of inclusion of certain cost in the value of the final product was clarified by the Board vide its circular dated 30.10.1996 and the demand for the period prior to one year would be hit by the bar of limitation. 6. In view of the foregoing, we agree with the learned Advocate that the demand falling within the limitation period only can be confirmed against them. As such, the demand beyond the period of limitation is set aside. Further, the issue is a bona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to Modvat scheme (which has occasioned this reference) it has to be shown that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods. 3.0 Decision of the tribunal in case of Aurbindo Pharma Ltd [2007 (216) ELT 389 (T)] and Sundaram Fasteners [2009 (237) ELT 55 (T)] has been passed without taking into account the decision of larger bench in case of Jay Yushin and hence rendered per-in-curiam. 4.0 In case of DharamPalSatyapal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi [2005 (183) ELT 241 (SC)], on issue of availability of MODVAT credit as ground of for revenue neutrality Apex Court observed as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. As stated above, the assessee herein was in the business of manufacture of chewing tobacco and its preparations for last couple of years. In the course of business, the assessee had dealt with similarly situated traders. It was fully aware that those traders who produced similar compounds had their units licensed or registered and yet the assessee herein did not take steps to get the above two units, in which the impugned compound (kimam) was manufactured, registered or licensed. As stated above, it has been buying a similar kimam from various traders. These circumstances constituted evidence of suppression brought on record by the department in answer to which it was contended on behalf of the assessee that they were under a bona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the amount of proforma/modvat credits was equal to the duty demanded, although it was urged that after 3/94, the liability to duty on inputs stood shifted to the final product. 25.Modvat is basically a duty collecting procedure which provides relief to the manufacturer on the duty element borne by him in respect of the inputs used by him. The relief is given under the modvat scheme on the actual payment of duty on the input. On such payment, the assessee gets a right to claim adjustment/set-off against the duty on the final product. The question of duty adjustment/set-off against duty on the final product was not in issue. In any event, no record on credit entitlement was produced. A right to claim proforma/modvat credit against duty ....