TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of woolen fabrics, MM fabrics and Plush fabrics, falling under Chapter Nos.51, 55 and 58 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During scrutiny of ER 1 returns for the disputed period, the Central Excise officers noticed that the appellant had paid lesser amount of duty on clearance of MM fabrics to its associate company, M/s Raymond Apparel Ltd. (for short, "M/s RAL"). Thus, the Department issued the show cause notice dated 04.04.2006, seeking recovery of short paid duty for the period from September, 2001 to June, 2004. In response, the appellant, inter alia, contended that it had paid the duty correctly on sales made to its subsidiary unit M/s RAL, as per Rule 8 of the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction method. He further summits that the appellant had adopted the valuation rules for determination of the assessable value based on the CBEC Circular dated 01.07.2002. Thus, the ld. Advocate submitted that since there is no suppression or misstatement on the part of the appellant to defraud the government revenue, the show cause notice should have been issued within one year from the date of filing the monthly return/knowledge regarding sale to such related person. To support the stand that the proceedings cannot be initiated beyond the normal period, the ld. Advocate has relied on various judgments delivered by the judicial forums. 4. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Grover, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the transaction value (sale value), but from 14.09.2001 onwards, it had decided to pay duty as per Rule 8 ibid. When the position of law remains the same, appellant cannot change the practice according to his choice. Thus, the stand taken by the Department regarding adoption of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, for determination of value cannot be faulted with. 8. On perusal of the case records, we find that extended period of limitation has been invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand inasmuch as, the period of dispute is from September, 2001 to June, 2004; whereas, the show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2006. From the available records, we find that the appellant had disclosed the sale transaction to the related person and method....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued in 2006. While we are aware that the relevant date for issue of demand is with reference to periodical returns to be filed, the Department has to allege and establish with supporting evidence, the existence of factors indicating wilful misstatement/suppression of facts etc. It should be a positive act of the appellant. The particulars, which formed basis of demand were all maintained and recorded in books of the appellant and were furnished to the Department. 10. The show cause notice in this case has been issued by the Department alleging suppression of facts by the appellant. It is trite in law that the suppression (intentional and deliberate) can never be said to exist when material and relevant fact forming the basis of the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 335 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Appellant's transaction was on the basis of an agreement which was within the knowledge of the Department from 1995 and accordingly, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked vide show cause notice issued in 2000. In case of Kushal Fertilisers Vs. C.C.E., Meerut - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.), the Department carried out periodic inspections of the factories and was also intimated in 1991 by the Assessee of the details of its business. In this background, the Department issued a show cause notice to the assessee in 1994 invoking extended period of limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court he....