9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. These two sets of 8 appeals relate to different units of the appellant company and involve identical issue and hence taken together for disposal. 3. The disputed period is August 2000 to February, 2003 and the dispute relates to inclusion of freight fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 5 and 7 both read together which allowed deduction of freight if shown separately which is the case as is evident from the invoices. He also draws attention to the minutes of R.A.C. of Mumbai-II Commissionerate which clarified that exclusion of cost of transportation is allowed if it is shown separately in terms of Rules 5 and 7. He further draws attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal period of one year is clearly time barred. 6. Heard the ld. D.R. He supports the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner. He also relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Raymond Limited v. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise, Indore reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 465 (Tri.-Mumbai). We, however, find that the case of Raymond cited (supra) relates to the period prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was known to the Department and they had declared to the Department regarding their intention to claim deduction towards freight during the month of August, 2000 and the assessments were also finalized, understandably after due enquiry, we do not find any justification for invoking the extended period of time limit in this case. Hence both on merits as well as on grounds of limitation, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
