9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 18/2000, dated 27-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. Duty demand of over Rs. 63 lakhs alongwith interest, and imposition of penalty has been made in the impugned order. 2. The appellants resist the demand both on merits of limitation. 3. The submission on limitation is that the show cause notice has been issued on 15-12-1998 for the period December 95 to Februa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulted from a cost audit of the appellant's unit by the Central Excise authorities and not on account of any suppressions of facts by the assessee. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the allegation of suppression made in the notice, is that "the assessee have suppressed the fact of correct assessable value". It is the learned Counsel's submission that assessable value results in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not going into the merits of the case. Para 2 of the show cause notice makes it clear that, according to the Central Excise Cost Accounting team, the assessable values should be higher than the assessable value worked out and certified by the appellant's Chartered Accountant. Learned Counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in contending that this is a case of experts in the field of cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty is that the goods were being captively consumed in the appellant's own other factories and whatever duty was paid was available to the appellant as Modvat credit in the other units. 5. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that the duty demand raised in the show cause notice is hit by limitation. The appeal is allowed on this ground after setting aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
