9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice is maintainable as it invoked the extended period of limitation. 2. The brief facts are that with respect to valuation of unprocessed grey fabrics cleared from unit 1 of the respondent to its own unit viz. unit 2, for processing. The respondent followed the practice of clearing the unprocessed fabrics to its own unit viz. unit 2 for processing by following the cost construction method in which they applied the cost data basis of the latest available financial statements (previous year or year preceding the previous year). The Revenue contended that the respondent should apply the cost data of the respective period (cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. I find that earlier grey fabrics were exempted, however, in view of the Notification No. 5/98 dated 02.06.1998, duty @ 12%. Advocate was levied on grey fabrics transferred from one unit to another unit in composite mill. The show-cause notices covering the period upto June, 2000, therefore would be governed under Valuation Rules as it existed prior to 01.07.2000 i.e. Section 4 read with Valuation Rules, 1975. The Department in both the Show Cause Notices has alleged that the noticee has under valued the said excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the provisions of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 cleared to their own unit by declaring lower value which has according t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value shall be based- (i) On the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee: Provided that in determining the value under this sub-clause, the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristic of the goods to be assessed and on the comparable goods; (ii) If the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods; There is no dispute that the goods were not sold but only transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per Rule the assessee is required to opt for provisional assessment, especially in such cases where the assessee has opted payment of Central Excise duty as per Valuation Rule 6(b)(ii). Thus it can be concluded that there was no provisional assessment and duty has been paid finally by the assessee, which is not in accordance with the Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Valuation Rules, 1975. I find that the assessee has started paying duty from the period June 98 to June 99, July, 99 to June 2000 by declaring the value without resorting to provisional assessment though the goods were cleared as per Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975, read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975. Therefore, the differential duty amount worked out for such clearances of grey fabrics during the relevant period is in order and the assessee is required to pay the said amount. In the circumstances, the differential duty of ₹ 3,45,274/- and ₹ 9,05,082/- demanded vide the noticees F. No. V(MGM)4-20/F-I/02 dt. 26.11.2002, F. No. V(MGM)4-20/F-1/02 dt. 08.01.2003 respectively in question are payable by the assessee, i.e. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. Wvg. Co. Ltd. The assessee in their written submission contended that there is no involvement of any suppression of facts and further the question of extended period does not arise. They quoted some Tribunal Judgments in support of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
