9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. M/s. Tel Exports, an EOU, has filed the captioned appeals. In the order impugned in Appeal No. E/53/2006, Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the demand of differential duty on parts of turbo charger supplied by the appellants to its sister concern M/s. Turbo Energy Limited during January, 1999 to September, 2000. In the order-in-original i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n adopted by the appellants was known to the department as far back as in April, 2001, Show Cause Notices issued on 30-1-2004 to pass the first order and 7-11-2005 to pass the second order were barred by limitation except for a period of one year prior to 7-11-2005. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works [2006 (197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Rule 7 of CVR. Ld. Counsel submits that by applying deductive method of Rule 7 the assessable value of the impugned goods worked out to an amount lower than the price on which the appellants paid the duty. Yet another argument advanced is that whatever duty the appellants paid, the same was instantly available as Cenvat credit to its sister unit. Therefore the proceedings entailed no addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arances of impugned goods prior to November, 2004. Therefore we hold that the demand relating to the period prior to November, 2004 as barred by limitation. As regards clearances in the ensuing period, the demand is in time. We find that Rule 7 of CVR is applicable when the goods under assessment or identical/similar goods imported are sold in the country of importation. Under this rule assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities that Rule 7 applies and is feasible. Therefore we remand the case for fresh decision in the light of the above findings as regards Order-in-Original No. 22/2006, dated 31-7-2006. The Order-in-Appeal No. 100/2005 (M-III), dated 9-11-2005 is set aside as the entire demand is barred by limitation. Needless to say that the appellants shall be afforded adequate opportunity to pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
