9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent assessee have sufficiently disclosed the facts to the Revenue. - Decided against the revenue - Ex. Appeal No.3502/06 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri H.M.Dixit, A.C. (A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri A. P. Mathur, Advocate ORDER PER MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY : The revenue is in appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14/6/2006 whereby it was held that extended period of limitation is not attracted and accordingly, the order-in-original are set aside. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent assessee is engaged in the manufacture of optical fibre cable/accessories/poly insulated jelly filled cables. On scrutiny of records for the period Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es bearing purchasers name, and that they dispatched to purchasers by road in accordance with terms of contract. Reliance was also proposed on the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in case of CCE versus Flexton Cables India , wherein it was held that delivery of goods/transfer of possession to buyer takes place when goods are handed over to carrier for being transported to buyer/Seller no longer remained the owner of the goods mainly because the purchase order shown dispatched at his risks. Reliance was also placed on Order No. 59/1/2003CX dated 3.3.2003 circulated by Ministry of Finance Company Affairs holding the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in Escort's JCB Ltd. Vs. CCE : 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC), on the question of inclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It has not been specifically pointed out as to what were the facts which were suppressed by the appellant justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation. On the contrary, the appellant have submitted two letters dated 11.09.2001 and 30.11.2001 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division II, Allahabad with a copy to the Superitendent, Central Excise Division II, Naini, Allahabad and both letters have been duly acknowledged in the respective offices. In the both the letters, they have informed that they have received purchase orders No.C-01/PIJF/HCL/(380)21 dated 14.05.2001 and No.C-01/PIJF/HCL/45.0/21 dated 15.10.2001 from BSNL and copy of the said purchase orders were also enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground of limitation as the assessee never disclosed that they would not be including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value. Further, reliance was placed on the rulings in the cases of I.A.E.C.Brokers Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise : 1990 (48) ELT 388 (Tribunal) and Shree Krishna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad : 1998 (36) ELT 190 (Tribunal), wherein it has been held that the non-disclosure of existence of contract by an assessee or whether different value of clearances are adopted, amounts to suppression of facts. 5. The ld.Advocate for the respondent assessee have filed the paper book enclosing the two letters dated in 11.09.2001 and 30/11/2001 along with annexure for copies of purchase contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
