TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 1.1. Officers of the Headquarters Anti-Evasion Unit, Kolkata-VII Commissionerate visited the factory premises of the appellant on 10.02.2011. During the course of joint physical stock verification, it was noticed that there was a shortage of inputs / raw materials on which the appellant had availed CEVNAT Credit amounting to Rs.40,445/- (inclusive of cesses). A shortage of finished goods was also noticed involving duty liability of Rs.18,031/- (inclusive of cesses). 1.2. The appellant has accepted the duty involved in respect of the shortages of raw materials and finished goods and paid the same. 2. It was also found that in some cases, the appellant were collecting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 100/KOL-V/2016 dated 26.10.2016 has upheld the demands of duty, along with interest and penalty, as confirmed in the Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2012. 4.2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there were shortages of raw materials and finished goods noticed during the course of stock verification. Even though they were disputing the method of stock verification, they accepted their liability and paid the duty involved in the shortages of raw materials and finished goods, with a view end the litigation. In this regard, he states that the Department has issued the Show C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessable value of goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the above submissions, the appellant has submitted that the demand confirmed against them on this count is liable to be set aside. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submitted that the appellant has admitted to the shortage of raw materials and finished goods, which was detected by the Officers during physical stock verification, and paid duty thereon. Accepting that there is shortage in raw materials and finished goods the appellant paid the duty and hence they are liable to pay penalty as suppression has been established in this case. 6.1. Regarding the duty demanded on account of transport insurance, the Ld. Departmental Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands. as the duty involved has already been paid. Accordingly, we observe that the Show Cause Notice for these issues need not have been issued. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the penalties imposed on the appellant on these issues are not warranted and hence, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant on these demands. 9. Regarding the liability to central excise duty amounting to Rs.1,21,936/- on transport insurance, we find that the appellant has collected transport insurance charges @ 1% on the value from the customers and deducted the same from the assessable value. However, the actual premium paid by them was found to be less than the 1% collected. In this regard, we observe that the profit earned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s). The present appeals before us are against the appellate Commissioner's orders. 3. After considering the submissions of ld. counsel for the assessee and ld. SDR for the Revenue, we find that the issue arising for consideration in these cases is already covered by decisions of this Tribunal. Ld. counsel has cited the following decisions :- (1) Kothari Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Chennai) (2) Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Bang.) In both the above cases, the amounts collected by the assessee in excess of insurance charges relating to the transportation of the goods from their factories to customers' premises wer....