TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the manufacturer along with the Water Well Drilling Rig Pack falling under 8430 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 has not been included in the assessable value thereof. Plant and Machinery has also been confiscated and allowed redemption on fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs has been imposed. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri G. Sampath for the appellants who submits that the order impugned is contested both on merits as well as on the wrong invocation of the larger period under Section 11A. He submits that each of these clearances was made on a price list in proforma part-II i .e. on the basis of contract transactions. Therein, the procedure requires that along with Part-II price list the buyer's purchase order is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A (1) proviso is clearly answered in their favour because by including the exact copy of the purchase order they have not hidden anything with the department while submitting the price list for approval. It was for the department to notice that in many of these purchase orders the accessories had been detailed and these were not included in the assessable value as there was a break up of the value available for the basic rig and the accessories. As against this, the law of limitation holds that something positive is to be hidden or suppressed by the assessee before the wilful intent to evade is proved. 4. On merits of the case, learned Advocate cites a host of judgments as follows :- Ingersoll Rand : 1994 (69) E.L.T. 737 Eurek....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by them in this case. 6. Learned Advocate, therefore, summed-up his submissions by saying that both on time bar and merits the impugned order was liable to be set aside with consequential relief to the appellants. 7. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned JDR, who submitted that the list of instances which were submitted showing that there were buyers without accessories was not done at the time of the original adjudication. Therefore, the original adjudicating authority was obviously not in a position to consider these facts. He further submitted that even as per this list the number of cases in which the buyers had bought along with the accessories was far greater than the number of cases in which they bought only the basic rig. Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in-Original impugned to treat these accessories as essential parts of the drilling rig pack is available in para 19, wherein, learned Collector has held that the departmental investigations have so revealed. However, the details of these investigations, the evidence revealed by these investigations, and the rebuttal thereof by the noticee have not been analysed in any detail in the said order. This unfortunately makes it a non-speaking order particularly in the light of the fact that the purchase orders were available on record. (c)  There is no application of these facts also with respect to the invocation of the Larger Period, particularly in view of the case law of Incersoll Rand cited by the learned Advocate now for the reason ....