TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 1 E/120/12 July 2000 to Mar 2010 2,39,39,010 1,33,69,135 1,33,69,135 31.10.2011 2 E/262/12 April 2010 to Sep 2010 2,24,467 20,588 20,588 25.11.2011 3. E/89435/13 Oct 2010 to Aug 2011 4,98,764 1,45,202 1,45,202 13.2.2013 4 E/87013/13 Sep 2011 to Aug 2012 2,53,258 1,41,997 1,41,997 16.8.2013 5 E/87793/14 Sep 2012 to Aug 2013 1,00,227 70,777 70,777 30.5.2014 The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle and they are clearing motor vehicle through various depots, which are regional sales office. Some of the vehicles are sold from the depot but in certain circumstances some of the vehicles are transferred from one RSO to another RSO and goods sold from the later RSO. The appellant are discharging the excise duty at the time of clearance of the vehicle from the factory at the price prevailing at the RSO where the vehicles are initially cleared. However, subsequently some of the vehicles are transferred to another RSO, where the prevailing price of the vehicle is higher and vehicle is sold at that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is reason also the confirmation of demand is not correct. Learned Counsel also submit that first show cause notice dated 19.7.2005 was issued for the period July, 2000 to Sep, 2004 by invoking extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant for the reason that the issue involved was raised by the audit party and in response, the appellant clarified the query vide their letter dated 15.2.2001, whereas the show cause notice was issued almost after 4 years from the query raised and answered. Therefore the appellant have not suppressed any fact from the Department. Hence the show cause notice dated 19.7.2005 is clearly time-barred. He further submits that in all the subsequent show cause notices, by invoking proviso to section 11 A, penalty under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposed. It is his submission that in all the show cause notices issued subsequent to first show cause notice, there is absolutely no suppression is involved. Therefore penalty under section 11 AC was wrongly imposed. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Rakesh Goyal, L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises (hereinafter referred to as "such other place") from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and the buyer of the said goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. It is not under dispute by rivals that valuation in case of goods sold at depot, shall be governed by the provision of above Rule 7. On careful reading of the said rule we are of the view that price prevailing at that depot from where the goods is sold shall apply. Contention of the appellant is not acceptable that at the time of initial clearance of motor vehicle to first depot, goods are intended to be sold from the first depot irrespective whether the motor vehicle first cleared to particular depot and subsequent transferred to another depot. The fact remains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard first show cause notice dated 19.7.2005, the fact regarding moment of their vehicle, that is removal from factory to their one depot and from their transfer to 2 nd depot and sale of vehicle from 2 nd depot was not disclosed to the Department. This fact was detected by the audit officers, therefore, is it clear that there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Once the fact during a period was suppressed, demand of that period can be raised up till 5 years. In the present case, the demand for the period prior to audit observation raised on January 2001 can be raised up to 5 years as there was clear suppression during that period. Hence, the demand of duty for the period up to January 2001 is correct and legal. In the show cause notice dated 19.7.2005, the demand was raised for the period from 1.7.2000 to 30.9.2004. In this regard, we observe that when the fact of the issue came to the notice of the Department in January, 2001, subsequent to that it cannot be said that there was suppression on the part of the appellant. It is admitted in the impugned order that the fact of moment of vehicles from factory to 1 st depot and from there to 2 nd depot and sale there ....