9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges and forwarding and handling charges recovered by the appellants from their customers but not disclosed to the department. The period covered by the show cause notice is from May, 1981 to March, 1983. The show cause notice was issued on 9-8-1984. The show cause notice is clearly after the normal time-limit of six months laid down in Rule 9(2)/Section 11A. The show cause notice, however, invoked the extended period of limitation of 5 years on the ground of suppression of facts on the part of the appellants and the adjudicating Collector has upheld the charge of suppression. 2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the charge of suppression is not correct in respect of the after-sale service charges. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders became final. The department was, therefore, not entitled to reopen the same issue for the same period and in respect of the same price-lists later on by alleging suppression. The ld. Representative of the department contended that the charge of suppression was borne out because the appellants had failed to produce the sale invoices for verification by the authorities though the authorities asked them to do so. The appellant's dilly-dallying in the matter of production of invoices may be objectionable conduct but in the absence of any finding that the invoices, when produced, disclosed anything contrary to what the appellants had declared to the department, the charge of suppression or fraud cannot be levelled against the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Coming to the delivery charges and forwarding and handling charges, the law has since been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment at [1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (SC) - M/s. M.R.F. Limited]. Such charges incurred up to the factory gate stage alone are addable in the assessable value; such charges incurred after removal of the goods from the factory gate have to be excluded. In the record before us, no break-up of the charges incurred up to the factory gate and those incurred later is available. The appellants, during the hearing before us, were fair enough to accept the duty liability on :- (i) Such charges proved to have been incurred up to the factory gate stage; (ii) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
