9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9) TMI 193 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) this Tribunal has held that extended period is not invokable when show-cause notice issued for the same subject prior to present notice, demands for the period prior to 19/02/2002 are not sustainable, show-cause notice is barred by limitation and the demands are not sustainable, order is set aside and the appeals are allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) jewel boxes; (c) cost of acquisition of music rights / cost of master CD including royalty; (d) advertising expenses; (e) overhead expenses; (f) freight handling and other charges incurred prior to sale of goods by the buyer in the market; for all the prospective clearances done from their factory. 3. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 04/12/2001 and it was held that cost of inlay card, cost of jewel box, value of royalty, value of advertising expenses plus overhead expenses are to be includable to arrive at the assessable value. The said order was appealed against by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication order holding that the order was passed by the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants. Against the said order, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate/learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of this case. He submitted that the show-cause notice issued in October, 2001 was for addition of the values for prospective period which was adjudicated and appealed against wherein the said additions were set aside. Therefore, the show-cause notice dated 22/09/2004 alleging suppression is barred by limitation. He further submitted that once a show-cause notice issued on the same issue, the second show-cause notice cannot be issued subsequently on the same issue alleging suppression. He further s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has set aside the method of costing of items includable in the assessable value and also observed that Revenue can make enquiries and on the basis of those enquiries, Revenue can adopt the proper method of costing of items includable in the assessable value, until then the provisional assessment can be resorted to. Therefore, it cannot be said that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that after issuance of Board's circular dated 19/02/2002 enquiries were conducted and thereafter it was arrived at how much value of inlay card, jewel box, royalty, etc. are to be includable in the assessable value which the appellants have not supplied the while clearing the goods. Therefore, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having some force as in the first show-cause notice of October, 2001, the demands proposed were for the prospective period. It is not a case where the department is not having knowledge of the clearance of the appellants on transaction value without including the cost of inlay cards, jewel box, royalty, advertising expenses, overhead expenses, etc. Therefore, the allegation in the show-cause notice dated 22/09/2004 for suppression of facts is not sustainable. We do agree with the contention of the learned advocate that in the case of Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal has held that extended period is not invokable when show-cause notice issued for the same subject prior to present notice. In the said case, it was also held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
