TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /06/2000. 2. The appeal No.E/2990 2993/00 is filed by the appellant company i.e. Vishnu Dyeing Printing Works and its partner against the confirmation of demand. While the appeal No.E/3047 3048/00 and E/3103 to 3110/00 are filed by the revenue against the very same order, which set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner and also reduced the penalties imposed on other assessees in this case. Since all these appeals arise out of the same order-in-appeal, they are being disposed off by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant M/s. Vishnu Dyeing Printing Works, are the job workers, who were doing processing of man made and cotton fabrics on the grey f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that as regards the correct value to be declared by the appellants for the discharge of duty liability, he does not have a case on merits, as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhilwara Processors as reported at 2002 (146) ELT 455 (T-LB) held clearly that "job worker cannot escape the liability to pay duty on correct valuation of the grey fabric declared by the trader in view of the undertaking given by them under Notification No.27/92-CE (NT)". It is his submission that this Larger Bench decision was given in September 2002 while the period involved in the current dispute is between April 97 to March 98. It is his submission that during the relevant period in ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, the current appellants were sought to be saddled with the demand of differential duty. Though on merits, the appellant's case is squarely covered against them by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhilwara Processors Ltd., (supra), we find that the appellants have made out a case in their favour on the point of limitation. The appellants had filed a declaration during the relevant period along with declaration as submitted to them by the merchants/traders. The said declarations were accepted by the authorities and are not challenged nor did authorities direct the appellants to produce further evidence as to the correctness of the declaration of value made by them. We find that the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not available for recovery of the duty from the job workers. 9. We find that the current appellant's case is squarely covered by the above referred decisions by the Ld. Advocate. We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in placing reliance in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd., (2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC) for the proposition that extended period cannot be invoked, where there is a bona fide belief. His submission that having filed the price declaration based upon the declaration given to them by the merchants/trader and also annexed the same along with the price declaration they had every reason to be under bona fide belief that the price was correct, has a strong force. As such, invocation of extended period for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
