TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that they were giving misstatement on the same. The department has lingered too long, after their doubts on the issue had cropped up. When the elements justifying invocation of extended period are not available in this case, the delay in issue of SCN proceedings are therefore hit by limitation and will have to be set aside - appeal allowed. - E/559/2009 - 42312/2017 - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Ramasubramanian, Manager (Excise Legal) - For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench Issue involved in this appeal relates to non-inclusion of royalty, bank and LC opening charges w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61,479/- covered in the SCN, along with interest liability was upheld along with equal penalty under Section 11AC. Aggrieved, appellants have filed this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Shri M. Ramasubramanian, Manager (Excise Legal) submits that the entire proceedings are hit by limitation. He submits that they had submitted all the necessary details to the department on various occasions. The price declaration for captive consumption had been filed with the Range Superintendent on 10.07.2001. In response to details sought by the Range Superintendent on 27.11.2001 regarding payment of royalty for technical know-how etc., they had submitted a reply dt. 12.12.2001 and filed declaration of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided by them, they were still issued with a SCN, that too much later, on 14.08.2007, inter alia demanding duty of ₹ 4,61,679/-. In the circumstances, Shri Ramasubramanian submits that the entire proceedings are hit by limitation. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of department, Ld. A.R Shri R. Subramanian takes us to para-7 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has clearly indicated that assessee had not disclosed the fact of non-inclusion of technical assistance/know how/consultancy fee and bank and LC opening charges in the assessable value. Ld. A.R submits that invocation of extended period of limitation was very much in order. He supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. Discer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
