9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory during the period January, 1996 to July, 1999. 3. The duty demand is being resisted on the ground of limitation. The appellant's contention is that the relevant facts about the fabrication activities carried out by the appellant and method of valuation were known to the Revenue authorities and therefore, the demand made by resorting to extended period as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable. The demand is on the ground that the appellant did not include the value of free supply raw materials in the assessable value, while paying duty on 'bottom side wall sheets'. The submission of the appellant is that the appellant had been carrying out fabrication work for Railway Coach Fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was for them to carry out proper valuation of the goods fabricated by the appellant and to make timely demand of duty. The learned Counsel for the appellant emphasised that in a case like this, where relevant facts were known to both sides, it is not open to the Revenue authorities to issue duty demand on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Learned Counsel has submitted that it is clear from the conduct of parties that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade any central excise duty. Duty if payable, could have been passed on to the Railway Coach Factory, if only demand was raised on time. 4. As against this, learned SDR took us to the following finding in the impugned order : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls may be supplied including its impact on the assessable value". Learned Counsel for the appellant has explained that the declaration in question is in relation to marketing parttern and it is significant to note that in regard to Heading-B which is for "sale to industrial consumer", the appellant had indicated 'NA' in all the columns including the one relating to free supply raw material/component. Learned Counsel has submitted that appellant was under the impression that Heading-B was not applicable to his fabrication work for Railway Coach Factory. He also pointed out that in any event, this annual declaration is of no relevance, once specific contracts relating to the fabrication work undertaken by the Railway Coach Factory had been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
