9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,49,415.08 was raised, at the same time, rejecting the claim of the respondents that such demand was barred by limitation. When the respondent company went up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the Collector (Appeals), without going into the merits of the demand for duty, held that it was barred by limitation. It is against this order that the department has come up in appeal before us. 3. The learned SDR has submitted, inter alia, that in this case the delay in taking decision was on account of failure on the part of the respondent company to furnish invoices pertaining to the relevant period and that they could take action only after they were able to gather revised printed price lists from M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason for the delay and that was failure on the part of the Assistant Collector to pass orders. In the meantime, RT 12 were regularly being submitted and finally assessed. Further, it is stated that the price lists filed, fully tallied with the price lists of M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. 8. The facts of the case and the submissions made have been fully considered. We recognise that in this case, the respondent company filed the price lists which were effective from 16th February 1981 on 22nd June, 1981 i.e. more than 4 months late. Nevertheless, these price lists were submitted by them entirely voluntarily and, therefore, the department cannot say that the delay in the submission of the price lists by itself is indicative of any intent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o say that the local officers were taking time to verify the prices on the basis of information being sought from M/s. Garware Paints. The question simply is, as to whether pending any inquiry that the department was making, they had taken pains to safeguard revenue. It is not at all understandable as to why the Assistant Collector did not allow the respondent company, provisional assessment leading final decision. 13. Nor has the department produced before us any correspondence from their side which would have been considered to be indicative of the existing assessments being provisional, or the issue of assessable value being open, or subject to final decision. On the other hand, we are informed that the department had rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad given the benefit to the assessee holding that in such cases, the assessee would have a claim to refund without recourse to provisional assessment. The ratio of this decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, where provisional assessment has been specifically requested and rejected and the department appear to have been at pains to give the impression that there was no need to reopen the current price lists, which question was related to the assessee's claim for deduction of post manufacturing expenses.
17. In the light of the above facts, the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the demand is time barred has to be upheld and the department's appeal is rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
