9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the delayed payment of duty. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of telephone instruments and parts thereof classifiable under chapter heading 8517 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. From 1-3-2000, the Notification No. 9/2000-CX., required the instruments meant for retail sale, to show the MRP on their packages. The appellant supplied telephone instruments to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and MTNL who gave them to the customers on rental basis, to the subscribers by retaining the ownership of the instruments. The appellant also sold some telephone instruments in the open market on MRP basis. According to the Revenue, the appellant had declared the pattern of sale in their letter dated 27-3-2000, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of suppression of facts, the appellant replied that, information was furnished to the department about the clearances with effect from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2000, and there was no suppression of facts. In paragraph 5.12 of the reply, it was specifically contended that the demand for the period from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2002 was raised on 21-1-2004, which was beyond the period of one year from the "relevant date" and, therefore it was barred by limitation. 4. The Commissioner held that the extended period was rightly invoked since the party had wilfully tried to create confusion to evade central excise duty, though Section 4A was amply clear in itself. It was held that the appellant had actually determined and paid the duty on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the procedure of valuation under Section 4 and paying the duty provisionally. The Revenue was asked to confirm the position. Despite there being ample material on record to show that all the relevant facts for assessment as may be decided upon by the department were before the Revenue, the Commissioner drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the non-mention of the letter dated 27-3-2000 in the reply to the show cause notice and observed that, the appellant had wilfully tried to create confusion to evade payment of central excise duty. This was not a valid ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. The allegation that the appellant had tried to create confusion is vague, and since the matter had required taking o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
