9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (MUL), free of cost. Appellants paid conversion charge for the job they carry out. The components so manufactured by the appellants are liable to pay central excise duty, and the appellants were clearing the goods on payment of duty. The duty on components being on ad valorem basis, their assessable value was computed on the basis of cost of production - value of the sheet blanks supplied by the appellants plus the cost of conversion. However, under a Show-cause notice dated 27-8-2001, it was proposed to reopen the assessment on the ground that the goods were not assessed at the full assessable value. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has reassessed the goods for the period from September 1996 to February 2000 and demanded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3. The appellants have also contended that, irrespective of the merits of the case, the present demand cannot cross the bar of limitation. It is their submission that proviso to Section 11A was not attracted at all in the facts of the present case inasmuch as there was no suppression of facts as alleged, which circumstance would have enabled the invocation of the proviso. Learned Counsel pointed out that production and clearance of the goods were in terms of agreement with the MUL and the appellant had stated these facts in the Rule 173C declarations filed before the Central Excise Authorities. He referred in this connection to various declarations which had specifically stated, "Prices are mutually fixed and job Purchase Orders ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is also a side issue that the appellant was not passing the actual amount realised from the sale price of scrap to MUL, but was giving abatement towards scrap value on an estimation basis. On the face of it, abating the cost of raw material to the extent of realisation from the sale of scrap would appear to be a correct method of costing. The impugned order does not mention any authority in support of a contrary view. Be that as it may, whatever be the merits of the case, at the threshold, it is to be seen whether the reassessment as carried out is permissible under Section 11A. The proviso to the Section 11A allows the reopening of assessment for the period going back by five years in exceptional cases involving fraud, collusion, suppre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
