2019 (7) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Sh. A. Jaju, Advocate for the appellant Sh. R.K. Mishra & V.B. Jain, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice has been rightly issued invoking the extended period of limitation. 3. The admitted facts are that the appellant does galvanization work in their factory. They r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise Department. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant has not paid duty on proper transaction value by not including the cost of metal components received for galvanization. Accordingly, invoking extended period of limitation, the show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 17,56,609/- along with penalty. 5. Show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....declared the assessable value of the tower components cleared by them inasmuch as they have shown the galvanization charges as the value of the goods cleared by them, and they have not declared that the value represents only galvanization charges and is not inclusive of the cost of metal components supplied free by the customers. 9. Ld. Counsel also relies on the rulings of this Tribunal in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Accurate Chemical Industries - 2014 (310) ELT 441 (Allahabad). 10. Ld. AR for the Revenue relied upon the impugned order. He further states that the appellant has failed to discharge duty properly and determine the transaction value properly. It is the onus of the assessee to make proper valuation as per procedure. 11. Considering the rival contentions, we find that under the facts and circu....