TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eak pressure tank and allied works of Nashik Water Supply Scheme Phase 1. The project involved supply of MS pipes for the project. EPIL sub-contracted the project to the appellants after keeping a margin for themselves. Under this contract, the appellants were entitled to receive certain percentage of amounts EPIL received from Nashik Municipal Corporation. The appellant filed a price list with Revenue on 21/01/1999. In the said price list filed under Annexure 2C, the appellants declared the value of pipes under cost construction method. Audit of the appellant was conducted in the month of July 1999 and a report dated 04/08/1999 was given by the audit. The following objection was raised involving valuation of pipes: "The assessee is engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant has wrongly arrived at the valuation of the pipes cleared by them on the cost construction method. It was alleged that the appellant should have paid duty on the value of pipes as indicated in the contract. The show-cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the contract between EPIL and Nashik Municipal Corporation was the composite contract. He argued that the value of pipes shown in the contract was only an estimate and not the transaction value of the sale price of the pipes. He argued that in the facts of the case the transfer of property in the pipes cannot be termed as a wholesal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it file so that the facts could be examined. However, though the learned AR had asked for the same from the revenue, it was not produced. 5. We find that the primary issue that needs to be decided is if in the aforesaid circumstances extended period of limitation could be invoked. We find that the learned AR has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Tigrania Metal (supra). The facts in the said case were significantly different. The Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has observed as follows: "11. Such is the finding and rendered by the Commissioner on 22nd June, 2004 which has been confirmed. We do not think that the Collector in any manner misdirected himself while recording a finding against the....