TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the ER-1 returns indicate that there is no suppression of fact involved in this case. The Appellant cited the receipt of a letter dated 17.09.2007 from the Range Superintendent on alleged short payment of duty due to under valuation wherein the he had asked them to pay an amount of Rs.3,59,269/- as duty on account of short payment of duty. This indicates that the Range Officer has verified the Returns submitted by them and demanded differential duty vide letter dated 17.09.2017. Therefore, demands raised by invoking extended period is not sustainable. The Appellant have paid differential duty for the normal period from December 2006 to November 2007. Since the Appellant have already paid the differential duty for the normal peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal dated 18.07.2011, upheld the demands. Appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. In their written submissions, the Appellant stated that the goods were initially cleared to the depot(s) on payment of duty at a price prevailing in the market. Later, more than 90% of the goods were cleared at the same price on which duty was paid. Only a small percentage of goods were sold at a higher price from the depot(s). They stated that the practice followed by them was duly intimated to the Department in the monthly ER-1 returns filed and the department never raised any objection. The EA-2000 Audit party previously visited the factory also not pointed out any discrepancy in the method of valuation ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mall percentage of goods were cleared at a higher price from the Depot(s). 7. The Appellant mainly contested the demands on the ground of limitation. They stated that the practice followed by them was duly intimated to the Department in the monthly ER-1 returns filed by them and the department never raised any objection. The EA-2000 Audit party previously visited the factory also not pointed out any discrepancy in the method of valuation adopted by them for depot clearances. Accordingly, they contended that the demands raised by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not sustainable. 8. We find merit in the contention of the Appellant. The Appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. They have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
