9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irawat, Advocate for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai Supdt. (AR) for the respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No.AT/388/M-II/2005 dated 25.07.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue in this appeal is regarding non-inclusion of value of shrinkage for discharging the Central Excise duty by the appellant for the period 1992 to March 1995, differentia! duty was demanded based on the finding that in an annual stock taking exercise on 16/2/1905 it was noticed that the actual shrinkage of the processed fabrics was 6.4% while appellant had included only 4% for arriving at the cost of raw ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was filing price declarations regularly during the material period. She placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint-Venture 2007 (216) ELT 177 for the proposition that ET mere omission and various circulars and decisions holding a particular view during the material period if followed, it cannot be considered as mis-statement or suppression. 5. Learned departmental representative would that for discharging duty liability by the job processor, the assessable value should be the value of pre-shrunk fabrics and the job charges. In the case in hand, undisputedly appellant had not considered the pre-shrunk value of the fabrics taken up for processing. He would submit that the larger b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt at is the claim of the appellant that they have already included a value which need not be included is true, then the addition of value of shrinkage to the tune of 2.4% is uncalled for in these facts. On merits we hold that the law as settled by the Apex Court in the case of was Ujagar prints will apply but to ascertain the fact that the appellant has included more value than it is due, only for limited purpose we remit the matter back to the lower authorities. The Rower authorities are directed to consider the claim of the appellant in view of the factual position that they had included more amounts than actually due in the value declared for discharge of the duty on processed fabrics. 10. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
