9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944. The duty liability involved is Rs. 4,61,679/-. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn falling under Schedule 52, 54 & 55 of CETA 1985. During the period June 2001 to June 2004, they manufactured polyester multiple folded yarn and cleared it to their other u nits for further processing on payment of duty at assessable value determined under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. The department issued a show cause notice dt. 14.08.2007 proposing inclusion of royalty/technical know-how /consultant fee and bank and LC opening charges in the assessable value for determination of Central Excise duty liability ; demand of Rs. 4,61,679/- of the differential duty liability with interest thereon and penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost elements they have made a reply on 14.11.2003 with actual workings seeking to establish that such components included were higher than actuals. In response to Range officer's letter dt. 30.03.2004, demanding differential duty for the period January/December 2002, appellants vide reply dt. 29.04.2004 had clarified that they had adopted higher assessable value than actual except on two counts and had paid the excess duty of Rs. 21 lakhs. They themselves calculated short paid amount of Rs. 5,32,459/- and paid the same on 05.05.2004 and the interest thereon was also paid subsequently. A spot memo was issued by the Internal Audit on 22.2.2005 which was replied by the appellant on 25.02.2005 and 04.05.2005. Further letters from the Range ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rintendent as early as in November 2001 and again on November 2003 for which detailed replies had been submitted by the appellant. From the replies it emerges that appellant had been contesting addition of these two cost elements. This being so, it cannot be said that they were suppressing any vital information from the department or for that matter, that they were giving misstatement on the same. 5. Viewed in this light, we are of the considered opinion that the department has lingered too long, after their doubts on the issue had cropped up. When the elements justifying invocation of extended period are not available in this case, the delay in issue of SCN proceedings are therefore hit by limitation and will have to be set aside, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
