Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 186 - CESTAT, CHENNAIDemand – limitation - we find that the assessees had filed declaration in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 173C regarding their market pattern. They had also filed worksheets showing item wise details of dispatch, value, forwarding charges and differential duty along with RT-12 Returns filed every month. In the worksheet, they had; indicated quantity sent for conversion and the rate adopted. Thus it is clear that the department was aware that the assessees were sending cotton yarn to job worker for conversion and selling hosiery fabrics at a particular value. Hence all the relevant information was available with the department. If the department was of the view that the value adopted by the assessees for clearances to job worker was much lesser than the value adopted for sales made from depot to other customers, show-cause notice alleging undervaluation and proposing to recover differential duty should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. We, therefore, agree with the finding in the impugned order that the extended period of limitation is not available to the department and that the demand is time barred.
|