Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 330 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - inclusion in the cost of the final product, various charges like testing charges, conversion charges, administrative expenses and notional profit while arriving at assessable value - Held that: - We find that the demand is for the period from May 1995 to 24.09.1997. The demand was raised only on the captive by consumed M.S. Pipes and Shells as the value arrived on cost consideration method. The Department initially raised the dispute in the year 1997 and the appellant has deposited duty amount of ₹ 34,07,750/-. Therefore it was not known whether the value is correct or otherwise. Specifically the matter was referred to the Special Audit and accordingly, vide show-cause notice dated 15.12.2000 the demand of differential duty was raised. The appellant is a Maharashtra State Government Corporation; M.S. Pipes is manufactured and used for the Government projects. Therefore the Corporation is not meant for making any product manufactured by them, is not sold in the commercial market but only meant for use of the Government project. Therefore in our considered view the Government entity cannot make payment of duty. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - For the purpose of invoking extended period, the assessee should have intent to evade payment of duty with fraud, suppression of fact, collusion etc. The intention of evasion of tax imposed by the Finance Ministry does not exist accordingly there is no ingredient exist either for the Company or promoters of the Company benefited intentional to evade payment of duty. In present case the appellant being a Government Organisation whether the gain or loss of Government entity, therefore cannot be any intention or evasion, there is no policy of the Government to indulged in such activity of evasion of duty. Moreover the valuation dispute was raised in the 1997 and the appellant as per their calculation paid the differential duty therefore if it is sought payment of duty the Department have issued a show-cause notice within normal period of limitation. In the show-cause notice for the period from May 1995 to 24.09.1997 was issued on 15.12.2000 which is much after the normal period of one year therefore the entire demand is time barred as proviso to Section 11A. As per the above discussion and the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the demand is not sustainable being time barred. Since we decide the matter on limitation action, we do not feel necessary to decide the issue of valuation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
|