Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts by the assessee, and whether the goods fabricated at site from free-issue materials supplied by the buyer were correctly dealt with for valuation purposes.
Analysis: The goods were fabricated at the buyer's site under a contract that disclosed the scope of work, and the challan-cum-invoices described the goods as fabricated pipes from supplied free-issue material on job-work basis. The assessee had obtained Central Excise registration for the site and filed RT-12 returns along with duty-paying documents. These records were available to the department, so concealment of the manufacturing activity or the nature of the clearances could not be attributed to the assessee. In the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation was not available. Since the clearances were made from free materials supplied under the contract and the goods were consumed by the buyer for the project, the dispute on valuation did not save the demand from the limitation bar.
Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred, and the impugned orders were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee disclosed the contractual arrangement, filed return documents with duty-paying invoices, and the department had knowledge of the site-based job-work clearances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.