2011 (7) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The impugned demand is for the period from 13.7.1998 to 30.9.1998 and the same is in respect of shampoo which was manufactured and marketed in sachets (8 ml) during the said period.  The records of this case indicate that, over a period of time from June 1998 to September 1998, the stand taken by the department vis-a-vis the duty liability of the appellant was fraught with indecision.  In a letter dated 25.6.1998, the Superintendent of Central Excise directed the appellant to pay duty on the basis of MRP, less abatement, under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant started paying duty on that basis, under protest, w.e.f. 13.7.1998. Later, the Superintendent, in a let....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extended period of limitation on the alleged ground that the noticee had suppressed the facts regarding the percentage of equalized sales tax amount, turnover tax, freight, bank charges and price equalization discount amount in the guise of holding their product to be assessable under Section 4A of the Act. Obviously, the new demand of duty was on the ground that the assessee had claimed excessive deduction of the aforesaid elements from the value of the goods in the determination of the assessable value. The allegations in the show-cause notice were denied and the proposals contained therein were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty against the assessee and imposed equal amount of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and proportionate penalty should also be sustained. At this stage, the learned counsel has pleaded time-bar against the demand of duty.  He submits that nothing was suppressed by the appellant and that all the requisite information was divulged to the department in a letter dated 18.4.2000 and hence it cannot be said that anything was suppressed by the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty.  It is, therefore, urged that the demand of duty be set aside as time-barred. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. The limited question arising for our consideration is whether the demand of duty for the short period from 1.7.1998 to 12.7.1998 should be sustained or not. The show-cause notice was issued on 25.7.2002 alle....