Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2010 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1125 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTValuation of excisable goods - valuation of the Physicians' Free Samples distributed - duty-demand during the extended period - on behalf of the revenue it was contended that the period involved in the present case is from April 2005 to January 2007 and that at the relevant time the issue stood clarified by the Board Circular dated 25.4.2005 - According to the Tribunal, when different interpretations were possible, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and penalty could not be levied. HELD THAT:- As assessee had entertained a bona-fide belief as regards the manner in which the valuation of the goods in question (Physician Samples) was to be determined. It is true that at the relevant time the Board had issued clarification in that regard in April 2005, but as has been rightly observed by the Tribunal, despite the aforesaid clarification the issue was not finally settled as the Tribunal had itself referred the issue to the Larger Bench. Moreover it is settled legal position that a Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Department but not on the courts or the assessees (State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd., [2008 (2) TMI 289 - SUPREME COURT]) Manner in which the valuation of the goods in question was to be determined was merely a difference of perception. The assessee was paying the duty by determining the valuation of the goods in question under a particular rule, whereas according to the department duty was required to be paid by determining the valuation under a different rule. Thus it cannot be said that there was any suppression of facts or intent to evade duty on the part of the assessee so as to call for levy of penalty under section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, the question of invoking the extended period of limitation did not arise at all. Thus not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. No substantial question of law.
|