TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation and dropped the demand raised by invoking the extended period. However, he imposed penalty of Rs. 58,05,357/- under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. He appropriated the pre deposit of Rs.12,48,801/-paid by the Appellant, against the confirmed demand. The Appellants prayer for not including the goods cleared under Section 4A of the Valuation was not accepted. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 2. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the matter of Super Synotex (India ) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II, reported in 2014 (301) ELT 273 wherein it has been held that the sales tax concession retained by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. He also justified the penalty imposed. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We observe that the adjudicating authority has passed the Order-in- Original 17.12.2019 wherein he confirmed the demand of Rs.58,05,357/- including Education Cess and SHE Cess along with interest, for the normal period of limitation and dropped the demand raised by invoking the extended period. In their submission, the Appellant submits that they agree for the payment of duty for the normal period of limitation. The Appellant submits that they have clared the cement under Section 4A, which should not be included for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that the entire issue was known to the department. The department was aware that they were availing the Scheme and retaining 99/96% of the VAT collected. Thus, they have not suppressed any information from the department. Accordingly, they contended that extended period not invocable in this case and for the same reason penalty is also not imposable. 8. We find merit in the argument of the Appellant. The VAT incentive scheme is applicable only in respect of the goods cleared under Transaction Value as provided under Section 4 of the CEA, 1944. It is not applicable to the goods cleared under Section 4A. Hence, we agree with the contention of the Appellant that value of goods cleared under Section 4A should not be included for computi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014(307) ELT 625(SC)and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273dismissed the departmental appeal.12.2 In the case, CESTAT relying on Apex Court decision in the case of 'MarutiSuzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014(307) ELT 625(SC)and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 had held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CESTAT held that extended period of limitation would not apply. Deciding the departmental appeal, High Court has held that CESTAT in its order has observed that under Circular dated 30.06.2000 CBEC had clarified that such amount retained by the as....