Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 843 - CESTAT KOLKATATime Limitation - Suppression of facts or not - Method of Valuation - price variation clause - clearance of excisable goods to depot - to be valued as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules 2000 or not - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. They have filed ER-1 returns regularly intimating the duty paid by them for clearances made to their depot(s). They have also paid differential duty of Rs 2,28,137/- under price variation clause for the clearances made to the Delhi and Mumbai Depot(s). These details furnished by them 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 period from December 2006 to November 2007, no other demand in the impugned order survives - Appeal allowed.
|