9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty along with RT-12 Returns filed every month. In the worksheet, they had; indicated quantity sent for conversion and the rate adopted. Thus it is clear that the department was aware that the assessees were sending cotton yarn to job worker for conversion and selling hosiery fabrics at a particular value. Hence all the relevant information was available with the department. If the department was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, cleared their entire production during the period October 1996 to June 2000 on stock transfer basis to depot at Tiruppur and to their consignment agents for sales and for other disposal. The final sale of yarn was effected from the depot at Tiruppur. Cotton yarn was consumed for the manufacture of hosiery fabrics on their own account besides effecting sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was barred by limitation and restricted the demand for the period from 17-3-2000 to 30-6-2000 which worked out to Rs. 2,45,563/- and he also reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. It is the case of the department that assessees were guilty of suppression as they had not filed any declaration as required under the second proviso to Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for sales made from depot to other customers, show-cause notice alleging undervaluation and proposing to recover differential duty should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. We, therefore, agree with the finding in the impugned order that the extended period of limitation is not available to the department and that the demand for the period prior to 17-3-2000 is time barred. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
