1998 (5) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olts and screws primarily to be used by them captively in the manufacture of the sewing machines. A portion of the said nuts, bolts and screws was also being sold by them through their depots. The appellants filed two different price lists with their jurisdictional Central Excise Officers - one in Part (I) for sales to be made by them to outside parties and other in Part (VI) in respect of goods to be used by them captively. 2. As per the allegations made in the show cause notice dated 17-3-1991, the Department's stand is that during the period 1986-87, the appellants have cleared these goods for sale to outside parties at a price which was approved in Part (VI) and was meant for captive consumption. Accordingly by applying the pric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for captive consumption. 4. Accordingly he submits that the show cause notice in question having been issued in the year 1991 for the period 1986-87 is clearly barred by limitation. Inasmuch as all the facts were in the knowledge of the Department and it cannot be held that there was any suppression or mis-statement on their part with intent to evade duty. 5. Countering the arguments Shri S.N. Ghosh, ld. JDR submits that the price lists in Part (I) and Part (VI) for sale of the goods outside the factory and for captive consumption, respectively were approved by the department, the appellants were duty bound to clear their goods to the outside parties at the prices approved in Part (I). By clearing the goods at payment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the adjudicating authority that when the Part (I) price list and the Part (I) prices have been approved, the goods transferred to their depots for sale purposes should have paid duty at the value so approved. However, we find force in the submission of the ld. Consultant for the appellants that the two different prices having been approved, the duty could not have been confirmed on the entire quantum of goods consumed by them captively. The appellants were paying duty on the goods captively consumed at the value approved for the said purposes. Accordingly we hold that the duty could be demanded by the department only on that part of the goods sold by them at the value approved for captive consumption goods. Accordingly we set aside the i....