9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RESENTED BY : S/Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate B. Saha, Advocate, for the 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 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessable value and the assessee s case was covered under Rules 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finalized and hence the show cause notice issued beyond the normal 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case on the ground of limitation. Since clearance of appellant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
