TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said order had sought to challenge the order on the point of bar of imitation. The appeal is, therefore, confined only to the point of bar of limitation. 3. The learned DR, while placing reliance in the decision in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (T.-LB), submitted that, the materials on record do not justify the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) about non-applicability of the extended period of limitation. He further submitted that, records disclose that the respondents had failed to disclose the relevant facts to the Department and neither had submitted declaration as required under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, nor at any point of time the Department was informed that the respondents were valuing the goods in question by paying duty on the value lower than that of similar goods which were being removed by the respondents, and in view of the suppression of the said fact with intent to evade the duty, invocation of extended period of limitation was certainly justified. According to the learned DR, the same was totally ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 11-AC". This finding clearly discloses failure on the part of the respondents to submit the declaration as required under' Rule 173-C of the said Rules. 6. The Rule 173-C relates to the procedure regarding valuation of goods assessable ad valorem. Sub-rule (1) thereof provides that, every assessee who produces, manufacturers or warehouses goods which are chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the goods and removes or clears such goods as provided in Rules 9, 49, 144, 152 and 157, shall declare the value under Section 4 of the Act of such goods in the documents such as sales invoice, invoice-cum-challan or like documents used by him for sale or removal of goods. The first proviso thereto provides that, such documents shall indicate separately the value of goods under Section 4 of the Act and the duty paid as provided under Section 12A of the Act that such documents shall also contain a declaration of the price, that such documents shall also indicate, wherever applicable, individually the central excise duty, other taxes, all discounts and other consideration, if any, for the difference between the price and the value of the goods under Section 4 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the deficiency, if any. 7. Apparently, Rule 173-C though carries the title as "procedure regarding valuation of goods assessable ad valorem", it prescribes certain obligations upon the assessee essentially with the intention not to give any scope to evade the liability of excise duty. The provisions on the face of it disclose certain safeguards which have been proposed to enable the assessing authority to ensure proper assessment in a manner which would avoid the possibility of evasion of the excise duty, Such provisions of law, though may relate to the procedural aspect, cast certain mandatory obligations upon the assessee and the compliance thereof cannot be said to be discretionary to the assessee. The compliance of such provisions is absolutely mandatory and failure thereof can result in prescribed penalty being imposed upon the defaulters. In this regard, the learned DR is certainly justified in contending that, when the particular thing is directed to be performed in a prescribed manner under the statutory rules, the person on whom lies the obligation is required to perform the same in the manner prescribed under the statutory rules and not in any other manner. The deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required to impart certain information to the Department. The information which is required to be imparted is not only relevant, but it is necessary in order to avail the benefits of certain exemptions etc. Being so, the information being of very relevant nature, non-disclosure thereof would amount to suppression with .intent to evade the duty. Obviously, therefore; it would empower the authorities to invoke the powers regarding the extended period of limitation. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Gopal Zarda Udyog (supra) held that "mere, failure or negligence on the part of the manufacture either not to take out licence or not to pay duty in cases where there is scope for doubt, does not attract extended period of limitation". It is nobody's case in the matter in hand that there was any scope for doubt about the requirement of disclosure in terms of Rule 173-C by the assessee. Being so, the decision is of no help to the respondents in the matter in hand. 13. In the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that, "where facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have ....