9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. He further submits that the demand of duty in the present appeal relates to extended period from 1.5.89 to 30.9.92 vide show cause notice dt.1.6.94, is barred by limitation. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various spare parts which were used captively by their Tractor Division. They were filing price list supported by costing certificate duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. It has been alleged that these goods were also sold through their other Division and therefore, it was proposed to be assessed at the same value at which these were sold in the open market in terms of Rule 6(b) (i) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. A show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their own case as reported in 2004(171) ELT.145 (SC). He also relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000(119)ELT.718(Tri.-LB). 3.2. He also contended that the appellants were submitting price list, which was being approved by the competent authority and there is no allegation of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty in the first show cause notice dt.29.4.93. So, the allegation of suppression of fact in the subsequent show cause notice dt.1.6.94 on the same fact is contrary to law. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return (RT-12) is required to be filed by 5th of the succeeding month i.e. 5th November in this case in respect of October, 1992, the show cause notice was well within the time limit of six months as stipulated in Section 11A (1) of the Act as also admittedly show cause notice was received by the appellants on 30.4.93". 6. On perusal of the show cause notice dt.29.4.93, we find that there is no allegation that the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It has been alleged in the said show cause notice that all parts transferred from M/s. Escorts Ltd.(Tractor Equipment Division), appellant herein to M/s. Escorts Ltd.(Tractor Division), were not being used captively by Tractor Division as some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued show cause notices on 28th May,1993 and 4th November,1993. By these two show cause notices the appellants were called upon to show cause as to why duty and penalty be not levied on them for not having reversed the Modvat credit. These show cause notices were adjudicated by an order dt.2nd March, 1994. Thereafter, the concerned show cause notice dt.27th May, 1994 was issued. This has been adjudicated by an order dt.13th November, 1997. 4. In the case of M/s. P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (2003(2)SCALE 390), the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier issued show cause notices in respect of the same subject-ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in appellant's own case reported in Escorts Ltd. vs. CCE 2004(171) ELT.145 (SC) held as under: "8. It is to be seen that the whole purpose of Notification and the Rules is to streamline the process of payment of duty and to prevent the cascading effect if duty is levied both on the inputs and the finished goods. Rule 57D (2), which has been extracted hereinabove, shows that in the manufacture of a final product an intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product comes into existence, even though no duty has been paid on the intermediate product as it is exempted from whole of the duty or is chargeable to Nil rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
