Raymond Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Raymond Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 04, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38665

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/38665
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb
Decided On: Apr 04, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raymond Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Excerpt

.....confirmed on polyester yarn by adopting rule 6(b)(ii) and penalty was also imposed by the asstt. commissioner's order dated 16.10.1997; this order was set aside by the commissioned appeals) by order dated 8.5.98 by way of remand of the case for redetermination of assessable value. no objection, however, was raised to the method of valuation of polyester tops as indicated in the letter dated 4.3.96. in these circumstances, since the change in the method of assessment is the cause for short levy and such change was clearly made known to the central excise authorities and was not objected to at the relevant point of time, we see prima facie merit in the contention of the applicants that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice is dated 2.5.02 and prima facie the applicants cannot be held guilty of suppression and prima facie the fact of non disclosure of the value of comparable goods/cost of production (which non disclosure has been relied upon in para 46 of the impugned order to hold that the extended period of limitation is available to the department) cannot lead to the conclusion that there has been any suppression so as to warrant invoking the extended period of limitation. we are, therefore of the view that the demand is prima facie time barred and hence dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

Full Judgment

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,40,63,727/- and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicant company and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its General Manager (Indirect Taxation) arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has confirmed the demand on Polyester Tops captively consumed by application of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 (cost construction method).

2. The period in dispute is April 1997 to June, 2000. The assessees' contention that the goods are to be valued according to the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) - on the basis of value of comparable goods-has been rejected.

3. We have heard both sides. We note that prior to March, 1996, the applicant company was paying duty by valuing goods on cost construction basis. On 4^th March, 1996, while submitting the price declaration, they stated that they would be paying duty on all future clearances of tops and yarn based on the value of comparable goods. Objection was raised by the Department to such valuation of polyester yarn and differential duty demand of nearly Rs. 5 crores was confirmed on polyester yarn by adopting Rule 6(b)(ii) and penalty was also imposed by the Asstt. Commissioner's order dated 16.10.1997; this order was set aside by the Commissioned Appeals) by order dated 8.5.98 by way of remand of the case for redetermination of assessable value. No objection, however, was raised to the method of valuation of polyester tops as indicated in the letter dated 4.3.96. In these circumstances, since the change in the method of assessment is the cause for short levy and such change was clearly made known to the Central Excise Authorities and was not objected to at the relevant point of time, we see prima facie merit in the contention of the applicants that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice is dated 2.5.02 and prima facie the applicants cannot be held guilty of suppression and prima facie the fact of non disclosure of the value of comparable goods/cost of production (which non disclosure has been relied upon in para 46 of the impugned order to hold that the extended period of limitation is available to the department) cannot lead to the conclusion that there has been any suppression so as to warrant invoking the extended period of limitation. We are, therefore of the view that the demand is prima facie time barred and hence dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Raymond Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cen. Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb