9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 07/01/2005 to 30/06/2007, they cleared physician samples on payment of duty by determining the assessable value adopting Cost Construction Method under Rule 8 instead of Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Show-cause notice was issued for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 6,18,431/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty One only) with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they have filed the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to the Department. Therefore, invoking of extended period of limitation is not sustainable. In support, the learned Advocate referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases: i. CC Vs. Magus Metals Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (355) E.L.T. 323 (SC) ii. Blue Star Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 820 (SC) iii. CCE, Mumbai III Vs. Essel Propack Ltd. - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 248 (SC) iv. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (SC) 3.1. Further he has submitted that this Tribunal while deciding the issue of leviability of duty on physician samples supplied free in the case of Bora Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Aurangabad - 2018 (360) E.L.T. 942 (Tri.-Mumbai) observed that extended pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice is beyond the normal period of limitation. On perusal of the show cause notice shows that the extended period of limitation has been invoked alleging that the appellants failed to bring to the notice of the revenue that they were paying duty on cost construction method. It is seen that prior to issue of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 813/10/2005-CX, dated 25-4- 2005, the revenue was of the view that the assessment in such cases needs to be done under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, as is apparent from C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX, dated 1-7- 2002. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation of suppression, misrepresentation, extended period of limitation cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
