Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 451 - AT - Central ExciseDifferential duty demanded on dipped nylon/polyester fabrics - Goods manufactured on job-work basis Held that:- The annexures are prepared party-wise and period-wise and not for each job-work - It might have been almost impossible for the adjudicating authority doing de-novo adjudication in 2004 to give finding for each job - there is no means to co-relate various charges with the prices declared by M/s Andrew Yule and Company - the appellant themselves had provided a buffer of additional cost element 1% to 5%, albeit to take into account cost variations on account of exchange rate variation - The SCN or adjudication does not examine the issue as to what extent such buffer already provided did not offset under declaration of value due to any element, if any not included it is not appropriate to allege any suppression on the ground that they did not include such costs to the materials supplied by others based on similar charges incurred by appellant. In the case of wastages also the calculation is not very clear in as much as the calculation of Revenue only takes into account the wastage of yarn in processing but does not take into account weight gain in processing due to dipping of the fabric in resorcinol formaldehyde latex solution - There is also a moisture regain factor mentioned - Such factors are seen to be taken into account in a few material reconciliation statements given to the parties concerned and forming part of annexures to SCN - the cost construction of Revenue is half baked - Neither there was desired clarity on method of costing to be adopted thus, suppression with intention to evade payment of duty cannot be held against the appellant - this is not a case where extended period of time could be invoked for demanding duty short paid Decided in favour of Assessee.
|