9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , [ 2024 (1) TMI 663 - CESTAT BANGALORE] even though upheld the method of assessment to be under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 but following the principle laid down in the below mentioned case restricted the demand to normal period of limitation. The demand has been rightly restricted to normal period of limitation as held by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue s appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. - HON'BLE Dr. D. M. MISRA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE Mrs. R. BHAGYA DEVI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Sh. H. Jayathirtha , Authorized Representative For the Respondent : None ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l period of limitation. 5. We find that the Revenue is in appeal on the short point of confirming the demand by the ld. Commissioner for normal period, dropping the demand for extended period against the Respondent and penal proceedings initiated. Undisputedly, during the relevant period, the Respondent had been discharging duty determining the assessable value under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. They filed ER-1 Returns periodically reflecting the payment of duty assessed by them. The ld. Commissioner analyzing the facts and evidence on record held as follows: 71. Coming to the second issue of the charge of suppression made on the assesse, I find that it is not tenable looking at the entire facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one in the event of captive consumption of goods as also in case of goods transferred to sister concern or to another factory of the same assessee and till then, Board circular governed the field. And, also because from March, 2008 onwards. On regular basis, the monthly returns have been filed by the assessee respondent indicating all possible details. Thus, the Tribunal rightly turned down the demand of duty prior to the period of one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 09.11.2009, holding the same to have been hit by the law of limitation. 20. In the instant case, we are in complete agreement with the findings of CESTAT, which rightly has concluded from the gamut of facts and evidence that all the materials wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
