Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 244 - HC - Central ExciseSuppression of facts - Extended period of limitation - Valuation - Job work - Held that:- Tribunal found that whenever grey fabrics were received for processing from Kandivli Unit of assessee the price lists were filed. The name of the assessee as owner of manufacturer of grey fabrics was indicated in the remarks column. The grey fabrics received from third party at Dombivli unit for processing were indicated in the price list in that behalf in the similar column. Further, the assessee never suppressed that it adopted a certain method of valuation and the formula emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints (1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). That method or formula may have been incorrect or not the applicable one, but the revenue proceeded to approve the price list. The revenue had several options and remedies so also courses open in law and precisely under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal indicates as to how the Revenue could have insisted on the revision of the price list if the Ujagar formula was inapplicable. If this was the course adopted by the Revenue while scrutinizing and verifying the records and for purpose of assessment, then, the Tribunal rightly concluded that nothing prevented the Revenue from questioning the stand of the assessee. If the Ujagar formula was inapplicable or was misapplied to the given facts and circumstances, then, the revenue could have proceeded and in accordance with law. If it has omitted to do it, then, it cannot turn around and allege suppression or mis declaration on the part of the assessee. This is a finding of fact emerging from the materials produced on record. - The adjudication by the Tribunal in the appeal is within the four corners of Section 11A and the ingredients thereof required to be established by the Revenue. This is how it proceeded and held in favour of the assessee, then, the order in that behalf cannot be held to be vitiated and to such an extent as would enable us to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue.
|