TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm the demand of the Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs.71,87,040/-(Rupees Seventy One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Forty only), short-paid by the assessee on account of undervaluation of the said goods, under the provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) I drop the demand of the Central Excise duty, totally amounting to Rs.6,03,986/- (Rupees Six Lakh Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six only), in view of my discussions and findings as detailed in para 15.11 above. iii) I order appropriation of the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.32,64,666/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six only), already paid by the assessee against the aforesaid demand of duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the assessee under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or the rules made there under and/or any other law for the time being in force.' 1.2 The Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Cable Jointing Kits which comprises of various components. Such components, either were bought out items or were manufactured by the Appellant. From the ..... are not excisable as have been held by the Hon'ble High Court in case of export. Appellant were paying duty of dutiable components manufactured by them following decision as per Rule 8. 2.1 By arriving as the value in accordance with CAS-4 issued by Institute of Cost Accountants of India. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the Impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. We find that by remanding the matter Tribunal has vide order no A/1008-1010/12/EB/C-II is held as follows: '2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various components of Cable Jointing Kits. The appellants are availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, input services and capital goods. The appellants are paying duty on the compound manufactured and capitvely used in the cable jointing kits as the cable jointly kits are exempted from payment of duty. The appellants are paying duty on the value ascertained under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention of the Revenue in this regard is that this issue is not raised before the lower authority and it is taken first time before the Tribunal and it requires verification. 6. As the issue regarding benefit of Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 was not before the adjudicating authority, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to look into issue of benefit of Notification in respect of compound after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellants.' 4.3 In the remand proceedings again Commissioner (Appeals) has determined the issue vide order-in-appeal no. PUN/EXCUS-001-APP-136-14- 15 dated 22.12.2014. 'Show Cause Notices proposing demand, interest and penalty as detailed below were issued.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sr.No. 1 to 3 above and vide Order No. $/653/13/EB/C.II (A/309/13/EB/C.II) dated 08-04-2013 against OlAs at S No. 4 & 5 remanded the case for denovo adjudication for consideration of issue regarding benefit of Notfn No. 3/2006-CE dated 01-03-2006. Vide impugned Order dated 30- 08- 2013, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty totally amounting to Rs.63,68,534/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. I find from the impugned Order dated 30-08-2013 that the benefit of the Notification No. 3/2006-CE has been denied to Appellants on the sole ground that the claim of the benefit of the said notification was an afterthought as it was not claimed by the Appellants at the time of clearance. The eligibility of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... procedural lapses' iii) The GOI in case of ACE Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. (2012(276)ELT 131(G.O.I.)) & in case of Banaras Beads Ltd. [2011 (272) E.LT. 433 (G.O.I.)) has observed that the law is settled that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses' & 'a procedural and technical lapse, hence, condonable. iv) Further, the Appellants have rightly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Share Medical Care V/s Union of India (2007 (209)ELT 321 (S.C.) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered that Even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial scene, he is not debarred, prohibited or stopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. ....