9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. - E/389/2009 - 41774/2017 - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Cyunduja, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of P or P medicines falling under Chapter heading 30 of CETA. During verification of the records pertaining to the period from 2002 to 2005, it appeared that appellant had adopted cost construction method as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, for arriving at the value of the goods cleared free as Physician samples and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 4 (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. (ii) Proceedings for the very same period and the same assessee on the issue of valuation were before the department in the guise of a refund application. The matter was decided in favour of the appellants vide Order-in-Appeal dated 25.01.2007. (iii) A letter dated 05.08.2002 was sent to the superintendent stating that we are adopting the cost of production as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 following the Board Circular. The deputy commissioner replied to the aforesaid letter stating that certain cost elements were not included in arriving at the cost. (iv) Three SCN s were issued rejecting the refund application filed by the appellants. Subsequently the department vide OIO R-010/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to evade payment of duty. That by itself, we are afraid, will not justify invocation of extended period. Surely, there has to be wilful misstatement or suppression or fraud with evidence that same was deliberate and was designed only with intent to evade payment of duty. This is certainly not the case. Appellants have claimed that a letter dt. 05.08.2002 had been sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent stating that they were adopting cost of production as per Rule 11 read with Rule 8 following the Board's circular. Moreover, the matter was already in litigation with the department concerning refund application filed for the same clearances. In any case, there definitely had been considerable confusion in the method and manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
