9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the sides, we find that the appellant is a unit of M/s Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of galvanised steel parts of transmission towers. The present demand can be divided into two parts. An amount of ₹ 2.00 crores approximately confirmed for the period February 2005 to April 2007 on the ground that the appellants have not paid any duty on the said part cleared by them during the said period. Explaining above, ld. Advocate submits that prior to the said period a dispute was going on between the appellant and the Revenue, as regards the activity amounting to manufacture or not and the said dispute resulted in passing of an order by the Tribunal (Order No. 1263-1268/98 dated 12.8.98). It was held by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4.13 crores is on account of the fact of under valuation of their final product cleared for job work basis during the period May 2007 to January 2010. Explaining further, he submits that their galvanisation plant broke down in or around April 2007, when they started sending their products to job workers for the purpose of galvanisation. As their job worker insisted on availment of Notification No. 214/86, they registered with the Central Excise department with effect from 1.5.2007 and started clearing the parts on payment of duty by adopting assessable value as 110% of the cost. However, the Revenues case is that the assessable value adopted by them is on the lower side inasmuch as the same should have been calculated in terms of CAS-4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roximately. 7. As regards the duty of ₹ 2.00 crores confirmed for the period February 2005 to April 2007, we find that the same stands confirmed by way of issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 4.3.2010. Prima facie we are of the view that the extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue on the ground that on account of the dispute on the activities of the appellant being going on, Revenue was fully aware of the said activities. Further, the appellant themselves registered with the Central Excise department with effect from 1.5.2007 and started paying duty on the clearance of the parts, being sent to job workers for galvanisation. Ld. Advocate at this stage clarifies that duty was being paid on the galvanised part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
