TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per rig. The Respondents have filed a price list dated 29th March, 1988 which shows the price of one rig to be Rs. 45,88,55,418.00, the difference being due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate. This price list was approved on 15th April, 1988. The Respondents were also regularly filing RT-12 form. The Respondents said the excise duty on rig taking the value of rig at Rs. 45,88,55,418/-. 2.On 15th March, 1990, they were issued show cause notice inter alia alleging suppression of the actual price of rigs for purposes of excise duty. It was claimed that over and above the price shown in the contract, the Respondents were also entitled, as per the policy of the Government, to receive a subsidy of 20% from Government and 10% from ONGC. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be - the normal price thereof, that is to say,(a) the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. 6.Rule 5 then in force read as follows : RULE 5. Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act except that the price is not the sole consideration, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this aspect at all. We find that there is also contention regarding limitation. Apart from referring to the Cotspun judgment the Tribunal has not satisfactorily dealt with the aspect of limitation. The Tribunal has not considered the fact that since Cotspun judgment in Section 11A has been amended. Thereafter the judgments of this Court in the cases of Dugar Electronics v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 2003 (1) SCC 188 and ITW Singode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2004 (3) SCC 48 have explained Cotspun judgment. In our view this aspect must also be re-examined by the Tribunal. 9.We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for examination of these t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
