TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be decided from January, 1997 to October, 1997 whereas the show cause notice covers the period from January, 1995 to October, 1997. Price list to which reference is made related to Rishikesh Unit and not to Pune Unit. Therefore, we modify the order of the Tribunal with clarification that the period would be the entire period that was the subject matter of show cause notice i.e. from January, 1995 to October, 1997. At the same time, we also clarify that it would be open to the assessee to argue before the Commissioner that it was not permissible for the Department to invoke the larger period of limitation as there was no suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee. If such a plea is raised, it would be for the Commissioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em resulted in increase in the gross price charged by the assessee from its customers over a period of time but the increase was reflected by way of increased labour charges by Unit II. The assessable value adopted by the Unit I for paying duty continued to be the same and as a result, Unit I was showing heavy loss whereas Unit II was showing heavy profits. The appellant/Department s case is that the spilt billing system adopted by the assessee in such a way that the value of unprinted bottles was reduced artificially although, there was no sale of goods from Unit I to Unit II. There was lot of difference between the sale price of unprinted bottles and sale price of printed bottles even after taking into consideration the excise duty pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Unit II. From the sale price of Unit II, it has subtracted the cost of printing of bottles to arrive at the actual assessable value of the unprinted bottles. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal vide its final order dated 13.04.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee and remitted the case back to the adjudicating authority with the following terms and conditions: a) No demand relating to the period prior to 15.01.1997 shall arise. b) For the period from 15.01.1997 the value shall be determined on cost construction basis and for the said purpose reliance can be placed on the cost a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h price list was filed on 10.12.1996 by the assessee. He submits that it is factually incorrect because of the reason that the aforesaid price list referred to by the Tribunal pertains to Rishikesh Unit and not to Pune Unit. He further argues that in the instant case, the Department had invoked the larger period of limitation on the ground of suppression and misstatement on the part of the assessee. He, thus, submits that the Commissioner should be allowed to consider the issue covering the entire period from January, 1995 to October, 1997. On going through the record, we find that there is substance in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Adhyaru as the price list to which reference is made related to Rishikesh Unit and not to Pune Unit. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
