2010 (6) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is involved. 2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of First Schedule to CETA, 1985. They had sold their final products to M/s. Transpeck Silox Indus. Ltd., against Advance Release Order (ARO) on the invalidation of Advance Licence issued to the said buyer. Such ARO enables the Appellants to import raw materials without payment of Customs duty. The department held the view that the Customs duty component should form part of assessable value since this amount flowed as additional consideration in the transaction between the buyer and the present appellants. The case was detected by DGCEI, Ahmedabad, and a show cause notice No. DGCEI/AZU/12(4)-60/2005-Pt-II, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Supreme Court on 18-5-05. Obviously, during the period involved in the current case, decision of the lower appellate authority, namely the Tribunal was ruling the field. The Tribunal had held that "the benefit derived by the appellant under DEEC scheme cannot be considered to be an additional consideration towards the value flowing from the buyer." Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant's argument that they had acted "bona fide" on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal has to be accepted. As a result of this opinion, I hold that the Appellants had no intent to evade payment of duty. In the circumstances, longer period of limitation is not available to the department. It is worth noting here that DGCEI visited the premises of the Appe....