9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation of goods or not is also purely a question of fact. It also appears that nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the contention that the Dyeing Master has expertise in valuation of goods. In that view of the matter, it cannot said that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is either an impossible or perverse. - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 85 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - B.R. Gavai A.S. Gadkari, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Jetley i/b. Mr. J. B. Mishra, advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vipin Jain a/w. Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. P.K. Shetty, advocate ORDER P.C.: 1 The Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resulting in higher assessable value being declared in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 leading to undue availment of excess deemed credit in contravention of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and para 6 of Notification No. 6/2002 CE (NT) DATED 1.3.2002. 4 The demand made against the duties and penalties came to be confirmed by the order in original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise dated 30th December, 2005. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal came to be filed by the Petitioner. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. Though the duty was upheld for the month of December, 2002, levy of the duty for the rest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as entitled to invoke extended period of limitation or not is purely a question of fact and not law and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. The learned Counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner v/s. Madhu Textile Industries Ltd., reported in 2010(257) ELT A18(Bom). 7 We have perused the material on record and also perused the impugned judgment. Main thrust of the learned Counsel for the Revenue is that the learned Tribunal misdirected itself in upholding stand of the department for December, 2002 and not applying the same principle for the earlier period. Undisputely, for December, 2002, the provisions of extended period of limitation were not required to be invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
