TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted that appellant had been filing cost sheets along with the declaration made by appellant no.2 when they manufactured and cleared Vicks Action 500 and Vicks Inhalers from their factory premises. If that be so, alleging that there was a misdeclaration of the value in the case in hand seems to be unfounded and incorrect - also reading the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints the discharge of the duty liability by the appellant based upon the cost of material plus job works charges during the period in question is the correct law followed and was followed. Time limitation - Held that:- Undisputedly, the declaration of the price which has been made by appellant is based upon the cost sheets given by appellant no. 2 to him and discharged the duty liability accordingly. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been filing the monthly returns with the authorities. If that be so a show cause notice dated 03-08-2009 invoking the extended period for demanding the duty for the period 2004- 05 to 2007-08 is blatantly hit by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No: E/574 & 575/2010 - A/30310-30311/2019 - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Mr. M.V. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Event 19.09.2005 to 22.09.2005 Audit conducted by C AG 13.10.2006 to 18.10.2006 Audit conducted A.G s Audit Party 12.11.2007 to 15.11.2007 Audit conducted A.G s Audit Party November, 2007 Audit by the Central Excise Audit Group December, 2008 Audit by the Central Excise Audit Group 16.04.1999 SCN issued to the Appellant demanding differential duty on job work valuation 27.09.2005 Appellant submitted details that the goods were valued based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints 14.11.2005 Details of clearances of goods manufactured on job work basis were submitted 18.11.2005 Details of valuation of goods manufactured were submitted 11.04.2008 SCN issued demanding differential duty in respect of goods manufactured as a JW alleging that there was a substantial differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with the documents given to them by appellant no.2 which they have done so. It is his submission that there is no free supply of material to the appellant from appellant no.2. Further it is his submission that in any case any royalty paid for the purpose of usage of trade mark is not includable in the value when the goods are manufactured under job work basis. He would submit that the entire demand is barred by limitation in as much, the job work arrangement between appellant and appellant no.2 is within the knowledge of department since 1999, as a valuation dispute itself was raised on the goods manufactured on job work basis; there were regular audits conducted by the departmental authorities and C AG department wherein job work agreement, manner of valuation of goods, has been examined and no demands were raised. It is his submission that for the period April 2003 March 2007, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and method valuation adopted for job work manufactured goods is on record the copy of the Order-in-Original dropping demand is enclosed along with the appeal memoranda, and the said order is not contested by the Revenue. It is his further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade applicable. It is her submission that the demands which are contested on limitation are also correct as non-inclusion of royalty charges in the assessable value came to the knowledge of the department only after detailed investigation conducted; as per Notification No. 36/2001-CE (NT) it is a job workers responsibility to declare the correct assessable value, and appellant has failed to declare correct assessable value. She relies upon the following case laws: i) Karamyogi Dyeing Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Mumbai [2002 (148) ELT 431 (Tri-Mumbai)] ii) Vishnu Dyeing Printing Works Vs CCE, Mumbai [2008 (221) ELT 369 (Tri-Mumbai)] It is her further submission that the adjudicating authority in the case as discussed each and every aspect which were argued by the assessee more specifically regarding periodical submission of cost sheets with the authorities, method in which cost of production was arrived as per manufacturing agreement between appellant and appellant no. 2 was also considered in its correct perspective and has come to a conclusion that the duty liability arises. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. It transpires from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems to be unfounded and incorrect. 10. Secondly, reading the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints the discharge of the duty liability by the appellant based upon the cost of material plus job works charges during the period in question is the correct law followed and was followed. 11. As regards the limitation, we find that on limitation also the appellant has a case in his favour. Undisputedly, the declaration of the price which has been made by appellant is based upon the cost sheets given by appellant no. 2 to him and discharged the duty liability accordingly. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been filing the monthly returns with the authorities. If that be so a show cause notice dated 03-08-2009 invoking the extended period for demanding the duty for the period 2004- 05 to 2007-08 is blatantly hit by limitation. In our view, the demand cannot sustain on limitation also. 12. The appeal filed by appellant is acceptable on merits as well as on limitation and accordingly we set aside the demands raised on the appellant. Since, we have set aside the demands on merits as well as on limitation, penalties imposed on appellant and appellant no. 2 do not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
