1995 (10) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s), Bombay. As both the appeals emanate from the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. NSC were engaged in the manufacture of sodium silicate classifiable under Item No. 14BB of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the old tariff). It was noticed that the price charged from their customers, M/s. National Industries Co., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as `NIC') was much lower than the price charged from other customers. For the period April, 1979 to April, 1982, four show cause notices were issued to them demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,63,185.68. The larger period of limitation was invoked for certain periods, alleging suppression. NS....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri K. Kumar, the learned Advocate stated that the NSC were engaged in the manufacture of sodium silicate whose principal raw material was soda ash. For producing 2.2 tonne of sodium silicate, 1 tonne of soda ash is required. As NIC supplied soda ash, the Central Excise duty was paid at lower prices. For other customers they had to procure soda ash at relatively higher prices from the open market and therefore, the prices in respect of such supplies were higher, and the Central Excise duty was paid on higher prices. It was admitted that their value in respect of the supplies to NIC was not a correct value for the purposes of calculating Central Excise duty. It was however, pleaded that the Central Excise law at that time admitted the valuat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it had been held that intent to evade duty must be proved for invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the `Act'), for extended period of limitation. 7. We have carefully considered the matter. On merits of the case, the appellants have admitted that their prices for sale of sodium silicate to the NIC were not the correct prices for the purposes of calculating Central Excise duty. It has, however, been contended that there was no suppression of the facts and that they were under the bona fide belief that in the case of job work when the raw-material - soda ash - was supplied by the customers, only manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit was to be taken into account for declaring assessable val....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere exempted from the requirement of filing of price list. The duty liability was determined on the basis of the prices as indicated in their respective invoices. While it has been admitted by the appellants that the lower prices declared by them for sale to NIC were not the correct prices, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had not followed the proper procedure with regard to their declared prices or had suppressed the relevant facts. Their basis for differential valuation was known to the Department and no objection had been raised in time. Their assessments were finalised by the proper officer. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed with regard to the point whether the demands issued to the appellants w....