9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the activity of undertaking embroidery on cotton and manmade fabrics, which is categorized as excisable goods and classified under sub-heading 5805.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 01.04.2003 to 07.07.2004, the appellant carried out embroidery on job work basis, on the fabrics received from the customers and discharged duty liability on the value arrived at by taking the processing charges and value of cloth received from the customers. During the course of verification of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there were divergent views by the Tribunal regarding consideration of actual length of cloth for the purpose of valuation. In this context, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gemini Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore - 1997 (91) ELT 195 (Tribunal) and also the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ramkumar Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2005 (183) ELT 356 (Tri.-LB). The learned Advocate submitted that since the matter was resolved by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand. With regard to the duty demand of Rs. 5,81,187/-, the learned Advocate submitted that the show cause notice had not provided any evidence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the present case, since the adjudged demand confirmed pertains to the period from 01.04.2003 to 07.07.2004 and the show cause notice was issued on 26.03.2008, the said notice, in our considered view, is barred by limitation of time, having been issued beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. With regard to demand of duty of Rs. 5,81,187/- on the ground that the appellant had undervalued the cloth in some cases and not taken the value of cloth in some other cases, we find that no such bifurcation or evidence had been provided in the show cause notice to substantiate that the value of cloth taken was less than the actual value considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
