9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was granted in respect of goods cleared from factory of manufacture, on sale, from so much of the duty as is in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price (excluding duty and local taxes, if any, included in such price) charged by the manufacturer for sale of the goods, subject to the conditions stipulated in the proviso thereto. Appellant had factory gate sales as well as depots sales. There is a dispute as to whether one or the other predominated. In our view, this aspect is not very relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal. In respect of factory gate sales, appellant was paying duty on the prices shown in the relevant invoice. In respect of the goods transferred to the depots, appellant was paying dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is not contesting that aspect. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that Notification No. 120/75 was not applicable to the goods transferred to depots. 4. The consequence of what we have indicated would be that in respect of the goods transferred to depots and sold from there, appellant would be liable to pay duty on the assessable value arrived at under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. There is no dispute that for goods sold at the depots, appellant collected consideration in excess of the invoice price at which factory gate sales were effected. The Additional Collector took the prices charged at the depots as the basis for determination of assessable value and gave deduction for sales-tax, insurance and transport charges. In our opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. Even in December, 1983, the Department by Trade Notice took the stand that Notification No. 120/75 would not be applicable to stocks transferred to depots. This was specifically brought to the notice of the appellant by letter dated 9-1-1984 (Annexure C). By this letter appellant was requested to intimate if there was any clearance from the factory other than by sale as envisaged in the Trade Notice. The letter also called for detailed information. Annexure F is a copy of letter dated 27-1-1984 sent by the appellant to the Collector of Central Excise giving particulars about products manufactured by the appellant and pleading inability to submit the price list under Section 4 of the Act. Annexure D is a copy of a letter dated 26-9-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware of the facts, it is obliged to take action within a reasonable period and if there is failure to issue show cause notice within a reasonable period after the Department comes to know the facts, the notice will be treated as barred by limitation. (See Upper Doab Sugar Mills v. Collector of Central Excise Meerut, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal) and Kamal Plywood Allied Industries P. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 323 (Tribunal)). Though ordinarily, period of six months should be regarded as reasonable period in view of the period prescribed in Section 11A(1) of the Act, as to what would be such reasonable period in a given case would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. We have already indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
