Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1142 - AT - Central ExciseUndervaluation - extended period of limitation - Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period of dispute is from 27.05.1996 to 04.03.2001 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court, in one of its very recent judgements in the case of M/S D.J. MALPANI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK [2019 (4) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT] has considered the amended provisions of transaction value in the context of determining transaction value including an additional amount paid voluntarily by a customer towards donation, which is called as “Dharmada” and the includibility of the same in the transaction value. The duty can only be on the transaction value. In the case on hand, the transaction value cannot be anything other than the valuation arrived at by a qualified Cost Accountant in his CAS-4 certificate. The other peculiar fact of the case is that the audit party has acknowledged the furnishing of such CAS-4 certificate and the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue has acknowledged that the appellant had in fact furnished all the required documents and hence, no deficiency notice was issued. The valuation as per CAS-4 certificate which has gone on records of the Revenue is required to be accepted - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to go by the valuation as per the CAS-4 certificate alone. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Revenue authorities were aware of the method of valuation adopted by the appellant which was based on the CAS-4 certificate which in fact underwent proper scrutiny by the audit party of the Revenue as early as in 2016-17 and hence, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, fraud, etc.; therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 is not just and proper. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|