2024 (6) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... units of NTC for processing like bleaching/dyeing and mercerizing on job work basis. For the goods received on job work basis from Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (KHDC) a state government undertaking the appellant adopted selling price declared by KHDC while returning the processing cloth to KHDC. However, the Department observed that the value adopted by the appellant was incorrect and therefore, it needs to be re-determined by including the landed cost of the raw materials, processing charges, and all other relevant charges as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the Original Authority adopting the principle specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints: 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC), the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e KHDC. The clearances were made by filing statutory price declaration from time to time to the Central Excise Department till the time audit visited them in 2002, no objections were raised on these declarations. It is also submitted that the processed fabrics was not meant for sale in open market but for free distribution to the downtrodden school children and the entire cost was borne by the State Government. The appellant under a bona fide belief that the price declared by the KHDC included the real cost of the grey fabric and the processing charges paid duty on that selling price. It is only on issuance of CBEC circular No.619/10/2002-CX dated 19.2.2002 and No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 the department object to the valuation adopted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... returns clearly indicating the selling price of the processed fabrics as declared by KHDC. Since the show-cause notice and the orders admit that the demands are based on the price declaration filed by the appellant, there cannot be any suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty. It is further claimed that periodical show-cause notices for denying the deemed credit availed on the fabrics received for job work for the period August 1999 to March 2003 were issued. Hence, it is claimed that entire demand is time barred. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the department reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. In the Final Order No. 948/2009 dated 13.07.2009, the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, the fact that the material facts were suppressed or the value was mis-declared is not justified. In the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated on 22-1-2013 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) the Supreme Court while dealing with the proviso to Section 11A on limitation observed that: "A perusal of the proviso indicates that it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or wilful default. In fact it is the mildest expression used in the proviso. Yet the surroundings in which it has been used it has to be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed ....