TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t : Shri N N Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per: P K Jain: The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing polyfilm by using LDPE and LLDPE granules. They are receiving such granules from their customers M/s. Warna Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh in the ratio of 80:20 by weight. However, while manufacturing such films they are using LDPE and LLDPE in the ratio of 50:50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable to the appellant during the subsequent period i.e. 1998-99. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Revenue has taken the value of LDPE prevailing during the period January to March, 1998 while they have requested for taking into consideration the average value prevailing for the whole financial year. If the value of LLDPE for the whole year is considered then their turno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omer by a cheaper material i.e., LLDPE, was suppressed from the department and therefore, in this case, both suppression of fact as also willful mis-statement is involved. Hence, extended period of time is correctly invoked. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the appellant was receiving 80% by weight LDPE and 20% by weight LLDPE. However, while manufacturing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the average value of LLDPE for these three months should only be taken into account. We find force in the contention of the Revenue. When the disputed period is 01/01/1998 to 31/03/1998 there is no reason to taken into account the value of LLDPE for the earlier or subsequent period. Either the appellant has to provide one-to-one co-relation of each consignment used in the manufacture of the ....