2003 (7) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... when it cleared these from the factory of manufacture at Jalgaon to its own factory at Girgaum for further assembling. The duty has been demanded that the value should have been based, not as was done, cost of manufacture, at the price at which such goods were sold by the appellant from the factory at Jalgaon for home use as spare parts. Counsel for the appellant accepts that on merits he has no case that the duty ought to have been in terms of Rule 6b(i) of the Valuation Rules on the value of goods which was sold. He however contends that the extended period of limitation will not be available to the department by relying on the Essel Packaging Industries v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 466. In addition, separate price lists were filed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inputs which it subsequently wrote of in its books on the ground that they have become obsolete. The Commissioner concludes from this fact that in view of this obsolence the inputs could not have been utilised in the manufacture of credit has denied the credit and imposed penalty. Counsel for the appellant does not press the point in the appeal with regard to the liability to pay the amount taken as credit but says that penalty cannot be imposed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57. That rule will not come into play, if credit is wrongly taken by means of mis-statement with intent to evade duty and credit was wrongly taken and it is only by occurrence in the subsequent factory rendering the goods obsolete that they could not be utilised. Hence, pe....