9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job workers who in turn took credit of duty paid on noodles and paid excise duty on the full value of the soaps. As the goods at all times belonged to the applicants, it is the applicants who had borne the duty on the noodles as well as the duty on finished products. The valuation of soap noodles, since it was not sold was determined on the basis of cost construction method under the then Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules. 2. The Department took a view that during the period October, 1995 to November, 1999, the applicants did not value the soap noodles correctly even though there was some increase in the value of the finished products. The Show Cause Notices were issued. The first show cause notice dated 17th August, 2000 was for the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise to the appellant, forwarding a copy of CERA s Audit objections consisting of total five paras and seeking comments of the appellant thereon. The learned Counsel particularly drew our attention to the following para :- M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under the chapters 15, 29 and 34 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 had manufactured and cleared different varieties of soap noodles to job workers to get manufactured soaps. The clearance of soap noodles was made on payment of duty. The value of such goods had been determined with respect to costing methods - no comparable goods were available. It was stated by the assessee that declaration under Rule 173C for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikhroli regarding price declaration in respect of dry soap Crowning Glory, particularly on para 2 thereof on page 25. The extracts of para 2 are as under :- As desired by your letter F. No. Cex/R-04/Vikh dn/PD/98, dated 9-11-98, we are enclosing herewith the costing details certified by an independent chartered accountant. Please note that the letter under reference was issued to us with respect to the aforesaid price declaration bearing No. 91/Dry Soap/98-99 effective from 11-9-98. But in view of our request to ignore the price declaration under reference, we request you to take the enclosed certificate into consideration for the new price declaration being filed by us. 7. While drawing our attention towards page 26, he pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the same Collectorate had issued an earlier Show Cause Notice covering period of operations. To the same effect is the decision in the case of Pearl Soap Co. Ltd. reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 135 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has inter alia stated that the department had knowledge of the alleged wrong practice adopted by the assessees, it is significant that the earliest show cause notice on the issue was dated one year prior to the show cause notice alleging suppression and invoking a larger period, which did not sustain. The learned Counsel emphatically stated that there is no allegation with intent to evade payment of duty in the earlier two Show Cause Notices. Therefore, the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner has travell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of meeting the precise case made out by the Revenue. 9. He finally submitted that the demand in question is not sustainable and as such the applicants have got a strong prima facie case in their favour for waiver of entire duty and penalty. 10. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R appearing on behalf of the Revenue referred to the decision in the BPL India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Para 17 is reproduced as under :- The contention, that the Collector could not have issued one more notice on the same set of facts when the proceedings initiated pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent earlier were not completed, is equally untenable. The notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel had never been produced before the lower authorities and not only that there is no mention of the same in the reply to the show cause notice. He also submitted that there is no contradiction of any kind in the 3rd show cause notice. The learned Jt. C.D.R also submitted that the revenue neutrality as contended by the learned Counsel is not relevant to the facts of the present case. Since the department was not supplied the correct value, the extended period is invokable in the case, in the light of the decision of Nizam Sugar Factory as reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (Tri.). Wherein Tribunal have clearly held that in cases of suppression extended period is invokable from the date of knowledge. The learned Jt. C.D.R submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
