TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of assessee. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has taken note of the fact that the price declared by the assessee was not objected by the Department. It is seen that the respondent submitted price list in form 2C along with covering letter dated 3.4.2001 to the jurisdictional Superintendent informing that the respondent will be receiving Zinc Die Cast scrap from STPL, respondent intends to take credit of duty on it, manufacture the Zinc Oxide and clear the same to M/s.Videocon Narmada Glass (A division of Videocon International Ltd.) under brand name 'STPL' and will be paying duty on value declared by STPL @ 67/- per kg. The respondent then also filed declaration dated 4.4.2001 under 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of duty. They were also manufacturing these goods on job work basis for M/s. Shambhu Traders Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as STPL) and such goods were being cleared on payment of duty at the value declared by STPL. The goods so manufactured for STPL were cleared on payment of duty to M/s. Videocon International Ltd to be used as input in their dutiable final products. A show cause notice dated 21.10.2005 was issued for the period 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 alleging that respondent had undervalued the goods manufactured for STPL on job work basis. The notice culminated in the Order-in-Original which confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 8,65,516/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides and perused the records carefully. At the outset, it has to be stated that the foremost issue for consideration is whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the demand is barred by limitation. The appellant urge that in the self assessment scheme, the responsibility of correct declaration rests with assessee. On scrutiny it was found that the price so declared was highly undervalued and that therefore extended period is invokable. On perusal of the Order-in-Original, it is seen that though the respondent assessee had raised the plea of limitation, the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the same, There is no discussion as to whether there was suppression on the part of assessee. In the impugned order, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
