2026 (2) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firmed the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs.6,34,589/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed an equal penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are a multi-product and multi-location company engaged in the manufacture of various products and are registered with the Central Excise department. During the period from January 2007 to September 2008, for the purpose of calculating the assessable value of the goods cleared from their factory, the Appellant claimed deductions on account of post manufacturing expenses ("PME") such as additional sale....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by ignoring the earlier decision of the CESTAT, New Delhi in the Appellant's own case. 4.1 She further submits that the Appellant were issued multiple SCNs wherein it was alleged by the department that the deductions claimed by the Appellant are inadmissible. She further submits that the said SCNs were adjudicated vide multiple OIOs wherein the issue was decided against the Appellant; however, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the Appellant; further, being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the department filed appeals before the Tribunal. She further submits that the Tribunal has rejected the appeals of the department and decided the issue in favour of the Appellant vide Final Order dated 30.04.2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able, the question of interest and penalty does not arise. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in favour of the Appellant in their own case for the earlier period (cited supra), whereby the Tribunal held that deductions on account of PME like octroi, additional sales etc are admissible to the Appellant on weighted average basis. Further, we find that the present proceedings arise on account of subsequent SCNs for subsequent period. We also ....