TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem at a specified price. However, as per the understanding between the appellant and M/s.Bajaj Tempo Ltd., in order to ensure timely supply of the products, the appellant purchased their two years requirement of the raw-material at one time and since this involved extra carrying cost of the raw-material inventory, this extra carrying cost was recovered from M/s.Bajaj Tempo Ltd as interest on raw-material inventory under debit notes. The point of dispute is as to whether the amount charged by the appellant from M/s. Bajaj Tempo as extra carrying cost of the raw-material inventory would be includible in the assessable value of the goods. The lower authorities decided this issue against the appellant and have confirmed the duty demand of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court has held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact etc., otherwise, there would be no situation for which the normal limitation period of six months would apply, that the ratio of this judgement of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, that for the same reason there was no justification for imposition of equal penalty under section 11 AC and that in view of the submissions the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri. R.K. Grover, the ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked and penalty under section 11 AC has been correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the amount charged from the customers as carrying cost of the extra raw materia linventory would be includible in the assessable value. 6. As regards the question of limitation and applicability of Section 11AC, the question to be decided is as to whether the short payment of duty was on account of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or deliberate contravention to the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 or of the Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty. While deciding this question, it has to be kept in mind that during the period of dispute there was system of self assessment under which an assessee was required to self assesses his duty liability and file ER 1 return to the Jurisdictional Central Excis....