Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (7) TMI 219 - AT - Central ExciseValuation (Central Excise) - Demand duty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the plotter, printer and UPS cannot be called as essential parts of a computer, we hold that their value cannot be added. Secondly investigation conducted by the department does not reveal that the appellants manufactured the above said peripherals. Clearly they are bought out items. The ld. DR's contention that when all the peripherals are supplied along with the computer as one unit their value should be added is not acceptable as that can be done only when they are essential parts of the computer. The appellant's contention that they entertained a bona fide belief that they were not required to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them is devoid of any merit. A blind belief cannot substitute bona fide belief. In regard to the contention that no demand could be made on computers sold during the period 89-90. We observe that the show cause notice issued in 1994 covered the period from November, 1989. Thus the period of five years covers November, 1990 clearances. For the goods cleared in October an assessee is required to file a return in November. The relevant date for computation of the period of limitation is the date of filing of return and not the date of clearance of the goods. The appellants have also raised a contention that the Commissioner erred while computing the demand inasmuch as he has not considered the fact that the price at which the goods are sold is a cum duty price. The appellants rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (3) TMI 100 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] wherein the Supreme Court held that even in case of clandestinely removed goods, assessable value has to be worked out after giving allowances to statutory duties that are leviable on such goods. We find merit in the contention the duty has to be recomputed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. Thus, we hold that the value of the peripheral have to be excluded from the assessable value of the computers alleged to have been removed without payment of duty. We hold that extended period of limitation is applicable. We hold that the price at which the computers are sold has to be treated as cum duty price, and the actual duty payable has to be calculated in the light of the Supreme Court's decision cited supra. Penalty has to be re-determined. Interest u/s 11AB is not demandable as the case pertains to a period prior to September, 1996.
|