TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules and demand for interest under Section 11AB for the period 28-9-96 to 31-3-99 have been made. 2. Under the impugned orders, Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad held that M/s. Maheshwari Mills had misdeclared the assessable value of the yarns during the period 1-6-94 to 31-3-99 and evaded a large amount of duty amounting to over Rs. 80 lakhs. Accordingly, by invoking proviso (extended period) to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, Commissioner has demanded the duty so evaded and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs on M/s. Maheshwari Mills. Separate penalties have been imposed on its officers. Appeal No. E/2766/01-NB(A) is by M/s. Maheshwari Mills and other appeals are by its office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground of limitation alone. 3. With regard to the merits of the case, it is the appellant s submission that under Notification Nos. 71/94, dated 23-3-94, 35/95, dated 16-3-95, 84/95, dated 18-5-95 and 8/96, dated 23-7-96, cost of processes which the Revenue seeks to include in the assessable value now had been exempted. It is being submitted that in a case where processes are exempted under specific notifications, there could be no demand for including the cost of those processes in the assessable value of the goods. The appellant has submitted that since the costs after the spindle stage remains exempt, the value up to spindle stage alone could be taken. They have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE., Hyderabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet made available. It is well settled that when the same facts are known to both sides, it is not open for one side to allege that suppression of facts have been made by the other side. The appellant s case will be covered by this principle. That the appellant was working out assessable value only up to the spindle stage and the element of cost included by the appellant were known to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the demand made by taking resort to proviso to Section 11A is not sustainable. 6. The appellant s submission that only cost up to spindle stage could be taken into account also merits acceptance. The goods under Central Excise are yarns. The yarns emerge at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and glass. Question arose as to whether cost of galvanization of tubes done outside the factory of production was liable to be included in the assessable value and also whether process of galvanization attracted duty, since galvanizing by itself was not a process of manufacture. Similarly, in the case where glass was manufactured in one unit and cleared to another premises for decoration, the question arose as to whether the cost of decoration was required to be included in the assessable value. The Apex Court held that cost of processes including the processes incidental to manufacture carried out by a manufacturer before the removal of the goods were liable to be included in the assessable value. In both these cases, there was no exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
