9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed 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, is barred by limitation of time, having been issued beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Demand of duty of ₹ 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 - HELD 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 for the purpose of valuation of duty liability. Since the said demand was confirmed solely based on the audit objection and no supporting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 records maintained by the appellant, it was noticed by the department that the appellant had embroidery machines of length 13.88 metres, which also holds 0.62 metres of cloth in the machine itself. Thus, the department contended that the total length of each embroidery should be 14.50 metres. Since the appellant had not included the value of 0.62 metres of unembroided cloth in the assessable value, it was concluded that the appellant had short paid central excise duty to the tune of ₹ 1,10,641/-. Further, it was also contended by the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand. With regard to the duty demand of ₹ 5,81,187/-, the learned Advocate submitted that the show cause notice had not provided any evidence that the value of cloth taken for consideration was less than the actual value on which duty liability was discharged by the appellant. Thus, the learned Advocate submitted that based on mere audit objection, without citing any evidence in support of allegation of undervaluation, the adjudged demand cannot be sustained on the ground of limitation. In this context, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ram Steel Rolling Forging Mills vs. CCE, Mumbai-II 2006 (204) ELT 87 (Tri.-Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/- 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 for the purpose of valuation of duty liability. Since the said demand was confirmed solely based on the audit objection and no supporting evidences were produced by the department, alleging undervaluation of the cloth, we are also of the view that extended period of limitation cannot be sustained for confirmation of the adjudged demand. 9. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
