2015 (5) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs dated 16.07.2004 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') whereby the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise has been dismissed. The appellant had been doing the job work for M/s. Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Limited (hereinafter referred to as P&G). The agreement in this behalf was signed between P&G and the appellant in December, 1994, for the manufacture of various goods such as Vicks Action 500, Vicks Vaporub Super Balm, Ultra Clearasil and Mediker on job work basis. Raw material for this purpose was to be supplied by the P&G. The appellant had been filing price declarations under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule 173 Q of the Rules has been set aside. In this appeal preferred against the order of the CESTAT, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he was not questioning the order on merit insofar as it holds that the 'other works overhead' should have been calculated in the cost which was to be calculated by the appellant for payment of excise duty. However, he submitted that the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation and if that is impermissible, demand for the period July, 1995 to June, 2000, would be time barred. Therefore, the only question to be determined is as to whether extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could be invoked by the Department or not....