9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per P K Jain The facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of car. During 2002-03, the assessee cleared eight cars manufactured by them for their own use. While clearing the car, they took the assessable value as was applicable for such cars being cleared to other customers and paid duty accordingly. Revenue issued them a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue. 2. Learned representative, Shri Sanjeev Dahiya, General Manager from the assessee, appeared in person. He submitted that before the original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), they have submitted certificate indicating that even if the value is arrived at under Rule 8 i.e. cost of production plus 15% profit margin, even then the demand will work out to only Rs. 27,566/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, even the demand of Rs. 27,566/- will not stand. In addition to this submission, the learned counsel also submitted that the department has invoked extended period of limitation. He submitted that there was no suppression of fact or any other thing so as to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation. 3. Learned AR, on the other hand, submitted it would be seen from the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly applicable and it would be more appropriate to determine the value under Rule 11 read with Rule 4 and the assessee has paid the duty correctly. We also find that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra) supports the contention of the assessee. We also find force in the contention of the assessee that extended period is not invokable. We do not find any ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
