9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs on H.R. Shah and of Rs. 20.00 lakhs on M.B. Patel, employees. 2. We have heard both sides at length. 3. The applicant manufactures, in the yarn division of its factory at Naroda, viscose yarn and woollen blended yarn. No part of such yarn is sold and all of it is entirely consumed in the manufacture in the same factory of fabrics. The value, for the purpose of assessment therefore had to be determined in terms of the Valuation Rules. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that, for the period from April, 1994 to August, 1996, the applicant under declared the value by not including for 1994-95 the element of profit, and by reducing in the other years, the amount of profit, bonus and gratui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Board relating to consideration of elements involved in determining the cost of manufacture and profit that investigation were commenced in 1998, resulting in issue of show cause notice in May, 1999 to many manufacturers generally. 6. It is further contended that the cost audit report in any event for a particular financial year is finalised and submitted to the Company Law Department six months after the close of that financial year. It is only at the end of the financial year that the final figures will be available. The valuation for purpose of assessment to excise duty is based therefore on notional figures determined on an approximation at the beginning of the financial year. It is therefore not possible for any person to go b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial year and it would therefore prima facie be unreasonable to expect the assessee to declare these figures to the department at that point in time. This however raises the question as to why the cost audit report for one year should not form the basis for the declaration of the next year. There is no clear answer. We are prima facie not able to accept the claim that the department made an oral request for the cost audit report prior to the commencement of the investigation in 1998. The conduct of the department in not questioning till then the values claimed by the applicant, and in fact by applying these values to finalise the RT 12 Returns, strongly suggest that it was no wiser at that time then the applicant. The contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
