9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the second show cause notice have been issued for the very same period - Further, merely because the show cause notice is for the very same period, it cannot be said that the second show cause notice is barred by limitation. It must be shown that the facts alleged in subsequent show cause notice was well within the knowledge of department - there is sufficient ground for remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/274/2009 - Final Order No. 42361 / 2017 - Dated:- 12-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri R. Subrmaniyam, AR (AC) for the Appellant Shri M. A. Mudimannan, Advocate for the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2007 covering the same period would attract the bar of limitation. The present show cause notice is on a totally different ground and the same has come to light on perusal of the balance sheet of the appellant. That the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the show cause notice for very same period is issued, the present show cause notice is time-barred is erroneous. He submitted that the respondents had not taken cost of raw material on its face value to arrive at the assessable value and instead had taken the value of raw material contained in the finished goods. Thus, the value of raw materials actually consumed in the production of the finished goods was not included for determination of the assessable value. In the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides and perused the records. 6. The main point that has been raised by the department is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the show cause notice dated 3.1.2007 issued is barred by limitation for the reason that the earlier show cause notice was issued for the very same period. From the perusal of records, we find that the earlier show cause notice dated 16.11.2005 was issued raising the following allegations:- (a) The appellants have adopted lower assessable value at the time of clearing goods to their consignment agents and had realized excess amounts over and above the invoice value adopted at the factory gate and failed to pay the differential duty. (b) The appellants had differential duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
