Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Fourrts (India) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III

2017 (10) TMI 550 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Valuation - Physician samples - cost construction method - extended period of limitation - Held that: - Surely, there has to be wilful misstatement or suppression or fraud with evidence that same was deliberate and was designed only with intent to evade payment of duty. This is certainly not the case - the matter was already in litigation with the department concerning refund application filed for the same clearances. In any case, there definitely had been considerable confusion in the method an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erification of the records pertaining to the period from 2002 to 2005, it appeared that appellant had adopted cost construction method as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, for arriving at the value of the goods cleared free as "Physician samples" and had accordingly discharged (lesser amount of) excise duty instead of correctly adopting the value as under Section 4 (1) (b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner vide impugned order dt. 30.03.2009 dropped the demand to the tune of ₹ 85,43,446/- towards Excise duty and ₹ 74,690/- Education cess. However confirmed the demand of ₹ 48,693/- (Excise duty + Education cess ) for the period 25.04.2005 to 30.04.2005 along with interest liability thereon and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 2. On 21.08.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the guise of a refund application. The matter was decided in favour of the appellants vide Order-in-Appeal dated 25.01.2007. (iii) A letter dated 05.08.2002 was sent to the superintendent stating that we are adopting the cost of production as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 following the Board Circular. The deputy commissioner replied to the aforesaid letter stating that certain cost elements were not included in arriving at the cost. (iv) Three SCN s were issued rejecting the refund application fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

justify as to how the extended period of limitation has been invoked in the instant case in view of the fact that the department was fully aware of the fact as early as in 2006. 3. On behalf of the department, ld. A.R Shri K.P. Muralidharan supports the adjudication. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. On going through the SCN dt. 28.2.2008, it emerges that while recovery of differential duty has been proposed to be demanded under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version