TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed these transactions in their annual books of accounts - goods were cleared and bills were raised for the fabrics for consideration and it was nothing but sale and, therefore, duty is required to be paid by the appellants on such sales Limitation - Held that:- Appellants have not given the correct figure of production of goods in the central excise records as figures shown in balance sheets are different, therefore, extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked by the department . Duty - duty demanded under the show-cause notice dated 14.3.2002 has again been demanded in the present show-cause notice - at the rate prescribed under Notification No. 2/1995 which is applicable in respect of goods manufactured out of imported raw material as well as indigenous raw material - contention of the appellants that they have never imported any yarn for the manufacture of fabrics in their factory - matter remanded back to the original authority for adjudication after verification of these facts - E/2794/05 Mum, E/2795/05 & E/CO-420/05 - Mum - - - Dated:- 17-1-2012 - Shri S.S. Kang, Shri Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri A.B. Naval, Cost Accountant for appellant Shri Y.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoved the same clandestinely without payment of duty. The central excise duty on the value of Rs.6,76,813/- in respect of said fabrics manufactured and cleared clandestinely without payment of central excise duty comes out to Rs.4,54,051/-. 3. The investigation further revealed that the assessee had taken permission from the jurisdictional central excise authorities to get the fabrics processed from various sub contractors and the said permission was granted to the assessee, subject to the condition that its processed goods should be brought back to the factory within a period of sixty days. Investigation revealed that the assessee had failed to procure its processed goods from sub-contractors within sixty days. In fact, the assessee raised the commercial invoices on sub-contractors converting its job work transactions into sale of such fabrics. After raising commercial bills on sub-contractors, assessee has booked such sales in its books of accounts. Such sale constitutes DTA sale of the fabrics manufactured by the assessee as the said fabrics were neither exported nor brought back to the factory within the said period of sixty days. Therefore, the department felt that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.41,33,191/- the learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the department has failed to consider that the show-cause notice dated 14th March, 2002 already issued to them and the Jt. Commissioner has already confirmed the show-cause notice. He further stated that it was wrong on the part of the Commissioner to hold that since the appellants have raised bill of fabrics on the jobworker and have booked the transaction in the annual report, the goods found to have been cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. It was wrong on the part of the department to demand duty on the fabrics which were never manufactured by the appellants in their factory. 6.3 He also mentioned that part of the demand is time barred as the extended period of limitation cannot be applied in this case. 6.4 The learned Cost Accountant has also raised the issue about the rate of duty applicable on the goods. He stated that it is on record that they have never imported any goods/raw material and the fabrics were manufactured by them out of 100% indigenous raw material. Therefore, demand of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04.01.1995 is not correct. He submitted that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants have not been able to prove their case satisfactorily that they have not cleared the goods without payment of duty. Therefore, we agree with Commissioner that the appellants have clandestinely manufactured and cleared the goods under the guise of design software. 7.2 The second issue raised in the show-cause notice that the sale value of fabrics in the year 2001-02 as per Annual Report is more by Rs.6,76,813/- than the sale value shown in excise records. We find that the balance sheet has been signed by the Managing Director and is an authentic document under the Companies Act, and, therefore the assessee cannot dispute the figures mentioned in their own balance sheet. We, therefore, hold that the sale figures shown therein, which are higher than in excise records are also authentic figures of sale and the duty on the differential value has been correctly demanded by the department. 7.3 The third issue involved in the appeals is that the assessee has sent the fabrics to the sub-contractor for job-work for getting processed the fabrics and the goods were never received back from the jobworkers. Therefore, assessee has raised the sale bills of the fabrics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
