CCE Vs. PAULSONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assessee who is manufacturers of ordinary Portland cement in their mini cement plant was availing SSI exemption. On visit of the officers in Headquarters of Anti Evasion Unit, Trichy, and on scrutiny of records, it was found that in addition to the assessable value the Assessee have collected extra amount towards freight and handling changes on which duty was not paid. Show -cause notice was issued stating that the extra amounts collected are extra commercial consideration for the sale of the goods and that the Assessee have suppressed the facts in order to evade duty. The notice proposed recovery of differential duty of Rs. 5, 06,806/ - and also proposed penal action against the Assessee. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority that also imposed penalty equal to duty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue.

(2.) WE have heard both sides. We find that right from the show -cause notice onwards; it is found that the abatement granted was to the tune of Rs. 500/ - PMT towards freight and Rs. 100/ - PMT towards handling charges for sale of cement within Pondicherry. Going by the above, the Assessees fall within the ceiling limit prescribed under the SSI exemption Notification at the relevant point of time. Although, learned JCDR would vehemently contend that Rs. 500/ - PMT towards freight and Rs. 100/ - PMT towards handling charges as an obvious mistake and it should be read as Rs. 500/ - per load and Rs. 100/ - per load towards freight and handling charges, we find that what has been extended in the show -cause notice and accepted by the adjudicating authority is abatement of Rs. 500/ - PMT towards freight and Rs. 100/ - PMT towards handling charges. It is too late for the Revenue to submit that this should be read as Rs. 500/ - per load and Rs. 100/ - per load towards freight and handling charges respectively. Going by the figures as set out in the notice and the orders passed by the authorities below, the Assessees fall within the ceiling limit prescribed in the notification and therefore demand has been rightly set aside by the lower appellate authority. Hence, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.