TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants had collected service charges amounting to Rs. 11,53,75,520/- from SGSIL during the period November 2005 to July 2008, however, had not paid any duty on the value of such service charges. On further verification it appeared that the appellants ought to have paid duty at 110% at cost of production of windshield in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 instead of reversing the credit taken on the inputs and paid duty on the service charges alone. Accordingly, a SCN dated 04.05.2010 was issued to the appellants interalia proposing demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,63,44,6649/- with interest thereon for the clearances of such windshields effected between November2005 to July 2008, appropriation of an amount of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contending that they have manufactured and dispatched windshield glasses ignoring that the transaction with SGSIL is under Notification No.214/86, the appellants paid duty of Rs. 1,88,13,379/- for job work charges as evidenced by letter dated 10.09.2009 addressed to Superintended of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division. iv) SGGIL had removed windshield incomplete under No. 214/86 to SGSIL, Pune and completed winshield suffered duty subsequently in the hands of SGSIL complying with conditions in No. 214/86. v) It is obvious that, duty is demanded for the second time (after duty had been discharged for the same by SGSIL as explained supra) in the hands of the appellant, even while they have operated under Notification No. 214/86 for dispat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been intimated vide letters as being so under notification No. 214/86, this fact was not brought or highlighted before the adjudicating authority neither in the SCN or during the personal hearing. For these reasons, Ld. Advocate requests that the matter may be remanded so that they could produce the necessary evidence to support their arguments before the adjudicating authority. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that it would be in the interests of justice to accede to the request of the Ld. Advocate for remanding the matter. The fact of the appellant having manufactured the goods for SGSIL under Notification No. 214/86 was evidently not brought to the knowledge of the adjud....