9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for guidance of the practice to be adopted, at the time of opening the new depot. The substantial part of the demand amounting to ₹ 3,21,715/- falls within the extended period of limitation and will be liable to be held as hit by time bar. For the remaining demand amounting to ₹ 21,403/- falling within the normal period of limitation, the same stands conceded by the appellant and the same is upheld - appeal allowed in part. - E/714/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20319/2019 - Dated:- 1-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Rohan Karia, Advocate For the appellant Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: V. PADMANABHAN The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. Rule 2(b) of the same Rules defines the term normal transaction value which is as under:- Rule 2(b) normal transaction value means the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold; 2.2. The Department, after scrutiny of the documents of the assessee during audit, came to the conclusion that the valuation adopted for clearances made to Hyderabad depot were not in terms of the above provisions of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. Show-cause notice dt. 11/10/2007 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of differential duty on the basis of the calculations done by the Department by adopting valuations different from that adopted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4.3. He submitted that the show-cause notice has invoked the extended period of limitation but no specific grounds have been cited by Revenue for alleging such suppression. 4.4. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that the payment of duty adopted by them is strictly in terms of Rule 7 and as such, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of time bar. 4.5. He submitted that the substantial part of the demand raised in the show-cause notice will be hit by time bar and only an amount of ₹ 21,403/- would be covered within the normal time limit. He also conceded that there could have been a few instances where the valuation adopted might not have been strictly in terms of the Rule 7 and as such, he concedes the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 686 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006(199) ELT 509 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CC CE, Tirupathi [2016(339) ELT 127 (Tri. Hyd.)] 7.2. From the records, it is also seen that the appellant has taken all reasonable care by obtaining a legal opinion for guidance of the practice to be adopted, at the time of opening the new depot. 7.3. It is seen that substantial part of the demand amounting to ₹ 3,21,715/- falls within the extended period of limitation and will be liable to be held as hit by time bar. For the remaining demand amounting to ₹ 21,403/- falling within the normal period of limitation, the same stands conceded by the appellant and we uphold the same. 8. In view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
