TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Director of M/s. Anant Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are that the appellants are the manufacturers of Audio and Video Compact Disc (CD) falling under Chapter Heading No. 8524.90. During the course of investigation it was noticed that during the process of manufacture, the appellants has purchased some parts from the market and some parts were supplied free of cost by the buyers. After manufacturing, these CDs are sold to the person or a company who placed the order at a price arrived at on the basis of actual cost of inputs incurred by the appellants and their job charges. Therefore, it was noticed that the price is not the sole consideration for sale and, therefore, transaction value as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factured by the appellants. However, liberty was given to the competent authority to reconsider the matter after making detailed enquiries on the facts of costing on different elements including royalty and advertising charges attributable to job-work, duplicating CDs from the master cassette. The said order was not challenged by the department and attained finality. Thereafter on February 19, 2002 Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX was issued by the CBEC clarifying that the method of valuation of goods manufactured on job-work basis by the CD manufacturers and it was clarified that the cost element which have to be included are the items supplied by free by the music company to the job-worker namely, inlay cards, jackets, jewel box and DAT/disc. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent show-cause notice demand has been asked for the period earlier to that show-cause notice, which cannot be demanded. He further submitted that as held by this Tribunal in the case Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 (198) ELT 296 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held that the demand can be raised for the prospective period after the Board's clarification dated 19/02/2002. Therefore all the demands are barred by limitation. To support his contention he place reliance on ECE Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC); Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) and GTC Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He also submitted that as per the clarification of the Board's circular dated 19/02/2002 the value of inlay card, jewel box, royalty, etc. are to be includable in the assessable value. Therefore, the appellants have undervalued their final products i.e. CD and the adjudicating authority has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, the appeals be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by rival sides, we find that in this case, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants in October, 2001 on the charge of under-valuation of the product by not including the cost of inlay card, jewel box, royalty, advertising expenses, overhead expenses, etc. The said show-cause notice was proposed for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of ECE Industries Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble apex court has clearly held that extended period of limitation is not invokable in subsequent proceedings when earlier proceedings on the same subject-matter pending/contested. Suppression of misstatement in second show-cause notice alleging the same in the earlier show-cause notice is not maintainable. In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. the apex court has held that each show-cause notice must be limited to the case that is made out therein by the Revenue. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to direct otherwise, to do so is to go beyond its purely adjudicatory function. In this case, while adjudicating the case, the adjudicating authority has held that this present show-cause noti....