Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 265 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - allegation that respondent had undervalued the goods manufactured for STPL on job work basis. - facts were known to the department - whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the demand is barred by limitation - Held that:- Price so declared was highly undervalued and that therefore extended period is invokable. On perusal of the Order-in-Original, it is seen that though the respondent assessee had raised the plea of limitation, the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the same, There is no discussion as to whether there was suppression on the part of assessee. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has taken note of the fact that the price declared by the assessee was not objected by the Department. It is seen that the respondent submitted price list in form 2C along with covering letter dated 3.4.2001 to the jurisdictional Superintendent informing that the respondent will be receiving Zinc Die Cast scrap from STPL, respondent intends to take credit of duty on it, manufacture the Zinc Oxide and clear the same to M/s.Videocon Narmada Glass (A division of Videocon International Ltd.) under brand name 'STPL' and will be paying duty on value declared by STPL @ 67/- per kg. The respondent then also filed declaration dated 4.4.2001 under 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 declaring intention to manufacture branded goods for STPL and to pay full duty without availing exemption under Notification No.9/2001-CE, On entering into further contracts with STPL the Respondent has vide letters dated 24.5.2001 and 1.8.2001 informed the department of the manufacture of goods for STPL on job work basis and declared the price. Respondent has informed the department about the payment of duty on the basis of price declared by STPL. On such score, the show cause notice dated 21.10.2005 is time barred, When all facts are within the knowledge of the department, they ought to have immediately informed the assessee if there was any shortcoming in the declaration of price or valuation of goods. We therefore are of the considered view that the impugned order calls for no interference. The same is sustained. - Decided against Revenue.
|