TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re raw-materials consumed in the manufacture is to be added - the assessable value of the job-worked goods needs to be re-worked to include the value of raw-materials attributable to the burning loss which has escaped. Time limitation - Held that: - The demand pertains to the period March 2001 to July 2004 for which show-cause notice stands issued only on 31.03.2006 which is beyond the normal period of limitation - demand hit on the ground of time bar. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/85/2007-DB - Final Order No. 22948 / 2017 - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent ( AR ) Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri N. Jagadish, DR representing the Revenue. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant was of the view that the differential duty demand is not sustainable on merits as well as on ground of time-bar. On merits it is his submission that the valuation has been done as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the Ujagar Prints case and the various components such as the cost of raw-materials and the processing charges including the profit of the appellant has been included. Accordingly there is no ground for further inclusion of burning loss. On the ground of time-bar he submitted that the audit of the unit was conducted in September 2004 but the show-cause notice was issued only on 31.03.2006, after a delay of 575 days. He submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that plea of the appellant that the burning loss is not required to be added is only an after thought. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We consider the issue on merit first. The assessable value of the goods which are manufactured on job-work basis is to be determined on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the Ujagar Prints case (supra). This means that the cost of raw-materials supplied to the job-worker is to be included along with the processing charges as well as the element of profit for the job-worker. It is seen from record that the appellant has included only the cost of raw-materials contained in the finished products as has been held by the authorities below. But to arrive at the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out on three dates, i.e., 6th September, 1993, First November, 1995 and 2nd September, 1994. The petitioners vide their letter dated 6th September, 1993 have recorded the visit of the audit party and have also replied to the audit objections raised by the said audit party in respect of scrap generated and have informed the authorities that they were debiting ₹ 80,000/- at the rate of ₹ 1,000/-per Metric Ton and that they were also debiting differential duty totalling to ₹ 63,318/- in respects of Mill Rollers which was debited under PLA dated 3rd September, 1993. Therefore, the petitioners vide their letter dated 5th July, 1995 have informed the Superintendent of the respondents that they had debited ₹ 2,08,760/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and in restoring the order passed by the original authority. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 7.2. Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed as under: 3. It is also found as a matter of fact, that the unit of the respondent was audited during this period several times and there were physical inspections by the Department as well. Therefore, there could not be any case of suppression. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the CESTAT. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. 8. By following the observations of the Hon ble Apex Court as well as the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
