Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1985 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (4) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of appeals by appellant.
2. Computation of assessable value of excisable goods.
3. Time limitation for show cause notices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a single revision application against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector, which was transferred to the Tribunal. The appellant sought to withdraw three appeals as the Appellate Collector had already granted full relief. The Departmental Representative opposed, citing the right to file cross-objections. The Tribunal found no substance in the objection, stating that the Department had received notice of the appeals, and the prescribed period for cross-objections had expired. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the three appeals, as the relief sought had already been granted by the Appellate Collector.

2. The issue in the second group of appeals was the deductibility of duty in arriving at the assessable value of excisable goods. The appellants contended that the duty amount calculated without considering exemptions should be deducted, while the department argued for the deduction of duty considering exemptions. The Appellate Collector held in favor of the department, citing Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Appellate Collector also invoked an extended period of 5 years for show cause notices due to suppression of material facts by the appellants. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the duty exemption amount need not be passed on to customers.

3. Regarding the time limitation for show cause notices, the appellants claimed that the notices were partly time-barred as there was no suppression of facts. The Departmental Representative contended that the extended 5-year period was applicable due to suppression of material facts. The Tribunal considered previous decisions on assessable value determination and found that the action of the lower authorities was correct. However, regarding the plea of limitation, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the records and ordered a fresh determination of duty liability and limitation by the Collector (Appeals) within 3 months for the interests of justice.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates