9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 29th July 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III, pertains to the clearance of 'safety razor blades' and 'parts and components for shaving systems' to job-worker in Himachal Pradesh and Hyderabad as well as to their own unit at Kalyan for further processing which was essentially that of packing. The value of goods was arrived at on the basis of 'cost construction' that relied upon the balance sheet for the previous year in the absence of actual cost of clearance ascertained for the year of manufacture with the differential duty, if any, being paid on finalization of the balance sheet of the year. Proceedings were initiated on the ground that these clearances had been effected without payment of proper duty. 2. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that further investigations were taken up during the pendency of these notices. That the revision of costs by the Joint Director (Costs) for this period was not acceptable to the appellant except in relation to clearance to 'job-worker' was clarified by Learned Counsel. He submits that the demand for the period was confirmed in order dated 12th February 2010 to the extent of Rs. 71,01,385 which had been duly discharged. 4. According to him the present proceedings commenced with notice dated 23rd March 2010, which sought differential duty of Rs. 2,95,45,203 for 2004-05 to 2007-08 and other detriments culminated with confiscation thereon in the impugned order leading to this appeal. 5. The first challenge to the show cause notice leading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that '5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the price lists were not provisionally approved, but have become final. There is no indication from the records that the appellants had suppressed any facts. In fact, based only on the balance sheet of the appellants' principal the demand was made. In the second show cause notice issued by the Commissioner, the amount of demand is exactly same for the same period. This demand is also based on the balance sheet of the principal. In other words, after the conclusion of the first proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, no new development took place. There was no seizure of any new docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Siddharth Tubes Ltd. [2004 (170) E.L.T. 331 (Tri. - Del.) has held that the issuance of a second show cause notice on the same issue and period after gathering additional information/material cannot be issued when one has already been issued earlier. Similar view has been held in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-II [2004 (176) E.L.T. 314 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 586 (CESTAT - Del.)]. Another important point should be borne-in-mind by the Revenue. It is possible that show cause notice for demand can be issued on several grounds say A, B, C, etc. When proceedings are initiated, the Revenue should take into account all the grounds. They cannot issue show cause notice on one ground, A. conclude the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
