9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid and the duty amount that would be required to be paid, applying the valuation method under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, based on the assessable value at the factory gate to the independent buyers Time barred - Even though all the demands are on similar issue, the amounts are different relating to different consignments and the invoices and sales details of the same were not furnished by the appellants to the department - Mere filing of RT 12 returns showing consolidated figures for the entire month was not adequate to enable the department to ascertain the state of affairs as the invoices have not been submitted along with the RT 12 returns - The appeals are allowed by way of remand - E/1111/04, E/893/06, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were required to pay duty in respect of impugned goods transferred to their own depot for subsequent sale in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. As per the said Rules, the depot price prevailing as on the date of clearance from the factory is required to be adopted. Hence, the demand raised by the department is justified. She also states that the appellants have not kept the department informed at any stage about non-payment of duty in accordance with the valuation rules and also the subsequent adjustments made by them. She further states that invocation of larger period of limitation is fully justified in some of the cases where it has been invoked on account of the fact that the appellants have not disclosed payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pendent buyers. 4. As regards the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the appellants that three of the demands are time barred, we find no merit in these submissions. Even though all the demands are on similar issue, the amounts are different relating to different consignments and the invoices and sales details of the same were not furnished by the appellants to the department. Mere filing of RT 12 returns showing consolidated figures for the entire month was not adequate to enable the department to ascertain the state of affairs as the invoices have not been submitted along with the RT 12 returns. Hence, we reject the ground of time bar taken by the appellants in respect of these three appeals. 5. In view of our findings as above, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
