Limitation in excise valuation disputes defeats differential duty demand when price declarations are on record and accepted.

Differential duty on captively consumed yarn was found time-barred where the assessee had filed price declarations under Rule 173C along with cost-accountant certification, and those particulars were acknowledged by the department. In the absence of any provisional assessment, further query, or clarificatory correspondence from the Revenue, the demand could not be sustained beyond limitation. The valuation dispute arose under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and the order dropping the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential duty on captively consumed yarn was barred by limitation in view of the price declarations filed by the assessee.

Analysis: The demand related to valuation of yarn under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The records showed that during the relevant period the assessee had filed price declarations under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and those declarations were acknowledged by the jurisdictional authorities along with cost-accountant certification. In the absence of any further query by the Revenue, any correspondence calling for clarification, or provisional assessment, the demand could not be sustained beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order dropping the demand was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without disturbing the finding on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: When the assessee's price declarations and cost particulars are on record and accepted by the department, and no provisional assessment or clarificatory correspondence exists, a demand for differential duty cannot be sustained as within limitation.

---