Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1208 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (9) TMI 1208 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Valuation - normal value under old section 4 - Demand of differential duty - Penalty u/s 11AC - Interest u/s 11AB - Held that:- Period 1999 when the old Section 4 was in force and the concept was of the normal value of the goods and not of the transaction value. We also note that at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice itself revenue has claimed that the normal value of the said pillow is ₹ 162/-. Appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X



Normal price at which such pillow were being sold will be the correct assessable value for the goods in question. Accordingly, on merits, we find that the case made by the revenue is correct and we therefore uphold the same. The contention of the appellant was that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as all the information was available with the department. We are not impressed with the said argument. The appellant were doing self assessment at the relevant time and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ai, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per P. K. Jain The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pillows. During 1999 they cleared 3928 numbers of luxury pillows at a low rate of ₹ 10 per pillow though similar goods were being sold at ₹ 162/- per piece. In this connection, investigation was taken up. Shri AM Pitke, Excise officer, initially submitted that they will submit all the documents pertaining to the clearance of the said pillow. However, he did not res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 per pillow. However, he could not justify from the records vis. RG-1 that the said pillows were lying with them for the last 5 years. In his statement, Shri Parikh admitted that it was not possible to correlate and give proof of stock of product in question. Further, the invoices issued did not indicate that the pillows being sold are old and damaged. After investigation, a demand notice was issued demanding differential duty and proposing penalty interest etc. the case was adjudicated by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1994 their contract was terminated and these pillows were left thereafter. By 1999 these pillows got badly damaged and were in a bad shape and therefore, they sold at a price of ₹ 10 per pillow. He further submitted that the department has not submitted evidence that the normal price of the pillow is ₹ 162/- per piece. In the absence of evidence relating to the normal price value of ₹ 162/pillow cannot be taken. It was further submitted in any case the pillows were badly damag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e extended period of limitation as all the facts were known to the department and they had not suppressed anything from the department. 3. Ld. AR on the other hand, submitted that the conduct of the appellant from the beginning was evasive. During investigation, the excise in charge had promised to produce the documents but did not respond to the number of summons and finally after one year appellant informed them that the said official has left the unit. Similarly, the Finance Manager also did .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated is without any supporting evidence and even if the contract was terminated there was no reason to keep huge number of pillows for over 5 years. Any prudent manufacturer would dispose of the said pillows within short period on some discount. It was further submitted that the price of ₹ 10 per pillow is very low compared to the normal price of ₹ 162/-. Ld. AR also submitted that the appellant had not disputed that the normal price is ₹ 162/- per pillow and only at the Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 2014 (36) STR 481 6) Rajendra Jagannath Parekh 2004 (175) ELT 238 7) Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (82) ELT 33 4. Ld. counsel in rebuttal submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Fiat India P. Ltd. (supra) supports him in para 50, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that there can be case when manufacturer may sold the goods at lower price if goods are not sold within reasonable time. It was also submitted that RG-1 account is already with department and intern .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also note that at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice itself revenue has claimed that the normal value of the said pillow is ₹ 162/-. Appellant has not questioned the same and did not produce any evidence to show that they were selling at some other price to other customers. Ld. counsel's contention that Revenue has not produced any evidence that normal value is ₹ 162/- is therefore dismissed. Further, we note that the invoice and the documents nowhere indicates that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice states as under: "In an attempt to justify the above explanation he submitted copies of the production report of the Tailoring department in M/s. Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Mahad for the year 1994. However, on scrutiny of the said production reports, Shri M.J. Parekh could not show that the 3928 pieces of luxury pillows under contention (size 17 X 27 ) were actually manufactured during the year 1994. Further Shri Parekh was asked to submit the relevant RG1 (i.e. stock register) maintained in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y pillows (size 17 X 27 ) in the factory in support of his earlier claim that the goods were manufactured during the year 1994." 7. Ld. counsel's contention is therefore rejected. There is no evidence that RG-1 register are with Revenue. On the contrary, during investigation Shri Parikh was asked to justify from the RG-1 register and he failed to do. Similar is the position regarding internal reports of tailoring department. As far as the case of Continental Engg. Industries P. Ltd. (su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version