9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tech Stewing Telecom Ltd. (NSTL for short) are manufacturer of Cable Jointing Kits (CJKs) which were held to be non-excisable. In the course of manufacture of the said product, an intermediate product named Heat Shrinkable Sleeves (HSS) come into existence which are excisable attracting duty applicable to the sub-heading No. 8547.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are manufacturing and consuming captively the said HSSs for manufacture of CJKs. The appellants determined the assessable value of HSSs by adopting the cost accounting methods. The HSSs are not sold to any customers but consumed captively. For the period from August, 2000 to March, 2002 the appellants have filed the cost of production informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after granting the opportunity of personal hearing and considering the written and oral submission, rejected appeals filed by the appellants. Hence, these appeals. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of both the appellants submits that the appellants are not challenging the matter on merits but the challenge is limited to the extended period of limitation. It is his submission that the appellant vide their letter dt. 10-12-2002 informed the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise regarding the costing data in respect of the HSSs for the period from August, 2000 to March, 2002. It is his submission that the show cause notice was issued for demand of the said duty on 25-8-2005. It is his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal product is exempted, the intermediate products are liable to pay duty. The undisputed facts are that the appellants were discharging duty on the said intermediate products on the basis of costing. They have been filing monthly returns. During the relevant period, the cost adopted by the assessee for the payment of duty was based upon the cost worked out on financial accounts of the preceding year. On this background, we find that the appellants on 10-12-2002 vide letter No. NSTL/CE/FAC/2002-2003, intimated the Superintendent as regards the cost per unit of their HSSs as certified by a Cost Accountant. There were some correspondences between the Department and the appellant. On the perusal of the correspondences, we find that the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that in the show cause notice issued on 25-8-2005 is blatantly time-barred. 9. We also find strong force in the contention raised by the ld. Counsel that in the case of their sister concern M/s. Shree Shree Telecom Pvt. Ltd., identical issue was decided vide final order dt. 19-3-2008. The ratio is squarely applicable in this case also. We may reproduce the said ratio as under :- 3. On a careful consideration of the matter, it is found that the data required for the Department to calculate the differential duty had been submitted in the year 2002. In these circumstances, the show cause notice demanding differential duty ought to have been issued in the normal period. There is no justification for invocation of extended period, es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
