TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal before him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Pre-fabricated Concrete Cement Poles [PCC Poles] falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 6810 99 90 and he supplies goods to the customers as per their specifications. Some customers take delivery of the goods at the factory gate, whereas the Appellant delivers the goods to certain customers at their place. Such sales are on FOR destination basis. Admittedly, the Appellant had not included the cost of transportation of its final products from its factory gate to the buyer's premises in the assessable value. This resulted in short paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the noticee was indulged in suppression of material facts from the department and has contravened the statutory provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 with intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. In my view there is no need to reproduce the said discussions in details again for the sake of brevity. Further, provisions of Section 11AC ibid (discussed above) do not provide any discretion to the adjudicating authority regarding quantum of penalty to be imposed under Section 11AC ibid, if it is found that the noticee have made themselves liable for penal action under said section. Accordingly, I hold that penalty, equal to the confirmed Central Excise Duty demand (i.e. Rs.69,53,740/-), is imposable on the noticee, under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any finding in the impugned order on the plea of the Appellant that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the present case. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Shri Atul Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant contested the impugned order both on merits and on limitation and submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. [2015 (324) E.L.T. 670 (S.C.)] the place of removal can only be the Appellant's factory and it could not have been the place of buyer. 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that there were contrary decisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l information in quarterly ER-3 returns with an intent to evade payment of excise duty. The SCN also proposed to deny SSI Exemption on the ground that the threshold limit for SSI Exemption exceeded and for that purpose included the freight charges in the value of the goods for the previous year's turnover. It is also the case of the Appellant that if the value of freight is excluded, then the gross value of the clearance was within the limit for claiming the SSI Exemption as explained in Annexure-10 to the Appeal Paper Book. As the period covered under the present demand is for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, therefore, for the SSI Exemption, the following information may be relevant for the purposes:- 2014-15 (In Rs.) 2015-16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod, there were conflicting decisions regarding the place of removal and, therefore, it was perfectly possible for the appellant to have entertained a belief that the cost of transportation of the goods from its premises to the buyers' premises was not includable in the assessable value. Therefore, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. It cannot be said that the non-payment or short payment of duty was due to fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact or violation of any Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty. We find that the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, the demand cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed w....