2024 (1) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... along with interest, by invoking the extended period of limitation. However, he imposed penalty of Rs. 20,41,472/- under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. 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 assesses is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. However, Board has issued Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 and clarified that extended period shall not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant submits that they agree for the payment of duty for the normal period of limitation and accordingly prayed for setting aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period. They also prayed for setting aside the penalties imposed. 6. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is regarding includability of the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. We observe that the issue is no more res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex (India) Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur reported in 2014 (301) ELT 273, has held that the sales tax concession retained by the assesses is required to be added in the assessable value for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CEA, 1944. We find that the adjudicating authority has not given any proper finding for imposing penalty under Section 11AC. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC not tenable. 9. Further, we observe that Board has issued Circular No. 1063/2/2018- CX dated 16.02.2018, clarifying acceptance of some of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts etc., wherein no review petition has been filed. The para 12 of the said Circular relevant to this appeal is reproduced below: "Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 12.08.2016 in the case of Microtek Forgings CEANo. 32/2016 [2016-TIOL-1866-HC-P&HCX]. 12.1 Department has accepted the order of the Hon'ble High Court ....