9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Commissionerate to value the goods under Section 4A in respect of factories located in respective jurisdictions, there cannot be any reason to hold in the instant case that the appellant s Kolkata factory, which is owned by the same legal entity, has deliberately resorted to value the goods under Section 4A as against Section 4 of the Act. Further, no evidence has been adduced to show that the appellant has wilfully resorted to value the goods under Section 4A to evade payment of demanded duty amount. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- A general averment has been made in the SCN that the appellant suppressed the actual assessable value to justify invocation of extended period of limitation. The impugned order cannot be sustained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, not covered under Section 4A of the Act. The said SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2007 and demand proposed in the SCN was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant disputed the SCN issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. He submitted that the identical issue has been decided in favour of their sister unit at Chennai wherein it has been held that goods are required to be valued under Section 4A of the Act. He further submitted that there cannot be any question of fraud or suppression for the reason that the Central Excise Department both at Chennai and Mumbai Commissionerate have taken a view that goods are required to be valued under Section 4A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment's contention to raise the impugned demand is not sustainable. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the decision in the case of Arvind Footwear (Supra) is not applicable to the instant case since the same is distinguishable on facts. He also submitted that although the declaration has been filed by the appellant enclosing the product lists but the size of said products was not stated therein. He accordingly submitted that the said declaration would not come to the rescue of the appellant. He prayed that the appeal filed by the assessee be rejected being devoid of any merit. 5. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that the instant issue can be deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i - I. Without commenting on merit of the order, I only add that the said order is not binding on me while deciding the present case as Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata - III" 8. We find that when there are clear directions from the excise authorities from Chennai and Mumbai Commissionerate to value the goods under Section 4A in respect of factories located in respective jurisdictions, there cannot be any reason to hold in the instant case that the appellant's Kolkata factory, which is owned by the same legal entity, has deliberately resorted to value the goods under Section 4A as against Section 4 of the Act. Further, no evidence has been adduced to show that the appellant has wilfully resorted to value the goods under Section 4A to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
