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

....ppellant herein is aggrieved by the orders 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 un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....however, penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed under 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 Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferential duty particulars though the cost audit reports were prepared for the years 98-99 and 99-2000 and Sri Bhaskar Rao in this statement dt. 21.6.2001 stated that they have not received the costing details. The assessees in their reply submitted that they have received the costing details only on 21.6.2001 and they handed over the same to one of the anti evasion officer, who was present in the factory and this fact was not known to Shri Bhaskar Rao and there was no suppression of facts of no malafide intention as alleged in the Show cause notice. This contention is not acceptable and it is clearly an after thought since the element of other work over head was not made known to the department and the same was not included in the assessab....