2002 (11) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Collector - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.); (ii)      Sarda Plywood - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 528 (Gau); (iii)     Southern Bottlers - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 427 (T) [Approved by the Supreme Court in 1997 (92) E.L.T. A 70 (S.C.)]; (iv)     Savita Chemicals Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 (T) [Approved by the Supreme Court in 2001 (130) E.L.T. A 262 (S.C.)] and (v)      Castrol India 2001 (135) E.L.T. 958 (T). 2. In these judgments it has been laid down that where there is a factory gate price available and where such factory gate sales are at arms - length, the factory gate price is the price that must form the basis of the assessable value even if th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RF shows total non-application of mind as in that case there were no factory gate sales at all. All the sales made by MRF are from the depots. This judgment was therefore wholly irrelevant. 7. The demand is also hopelessly time-barred. The show cause notice issued by the Commissioner is dated 27-7-1993 and seeks to demand duty for the period July 1988 to June 1992 on the ground that the Appellants had suppressed the fact that they were recovering a higher price in respect of the depots sales. This contention is ex facie erroneous for the following reasons : (i)       As far back as 25-11-1987 the Audit Party after inspecting the depot invoices issued a query memo, specifically stating that the depot ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hatsoever of any facts between 1987 and 1993 when the show cause notice was issued. In the circumstances it is submitted that the demand for the period July 1988 to June 1992 is hopelessly time-barred. 9. The Commissioner has totally ignored the correspondence and is only purported to refer to the questionnaire filed with the price list dated 28-4-1988 and is purported to infer that from the questionnaire the department would be in no position to know that the price realized by the assessee from the depots was higher than the factory gate price. This reasoning is manifestly specious as the department were aware that the depot prices were higher than the factory gate price right from 1987, which has been conveniently ignored by the C....