TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that during the period January, 2005 to October, 2008 and January, 2005 to July, 2007 and the appellants were manufacturing pharmaceuticals goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, vide Notification No. 2/2005-C.E. (N.T.) dated 7-1-2005, provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the purpose of valuation for payment of Central Excise duty on PRP medicaments, were introduced, after eligible abatement at applicable rate with reference to the retail sale price. It was noticed by the lower authorities, on scrutiny of the records, the appellants had claimed quantitative discount and were not paying duty on free goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is blatantly time barred. He would read the findings of the adjudicating authority on the question of limitation and submit that these findings are incorrect as the appellants had always been indicating the facts in their returns. 4. Learned departmental representative on the other hand would submit that the entire case of the assessee on the limitation is based upon the entries made by them in the RG-1 register. He would submit that the RG-1 register is never submitted to the range officer for scrutiny. He would submit that the returns which were submitted, had two quantitative clearances and there was one assessable value which would indicate that quantity cleared on the normal clearance and as quantitative discount and there was a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is undisputed that the appellant had been filing the monthly ER-1 returns to the lower authorities. It is also seen that the said monthly returns had a column which indicated "removal from the factory without payment of duty" wherein the appellants herein had been filling the details and clearly indicating the quantity of P or P medicaments cleared were without payment of duty under quantitative discount. This ER-1 returns were accepted by the lower authorities and there is nothing on record to show that the lower authorities had sought clarification from the assessee as regards the quantity cleared under quantitative discount without payment by them. In the absence of any such correspondence, we find that the adjudicating authority has er....