TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.1,18,40,175/- pertaining to the extended period of limitation was dropped on the ground that invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not sustainable, while confirming duty of Rs.17,13,395/- for the normal period along with interest and imposing penalty under Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Act. 1.2 The respondent, M/s. Universal Colours India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram is engaged in the manufacture of stamp pads (small and medium) falling under CETH 9612 20 00, bearing the brand name "Faber-Castell", owned by M/s. A.W. Faber-Castell India Pvt. Ltd. The respondent was registered with the Central Excise Department with e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar, appeared for the Appellant-Department and the Ld. Advocate Mr. Jaikumar, appeared for the Respondent/Assessee. 4.1 The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the adjudicating authority erred in holding that extended period is not invokable. It was contended that: - i. Though the respondent declared classification under CETH 9612, they never disclosed that valuation was being done under Section 4 instead of Section 4A. ii. Mere declaration of tariff heading does not automatically convey the method of valuation, particularly when Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 provide exemptions in certain cases. iii. The respondent did not explic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on on valuation. v. There is extensive correspondence from May-June 2011, where all facts regarding product, brand name, clearances and SSI exemption were disclosed. vi. On being pointed out by audit, the respondent immediately accepted liability and paid duty with interest for the normal period. vii. The Respondent relied on Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2024 (2) TMI 727 (CESTAT Chennai) and Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, 2023 (3) TMI 1067 (CESTAT New Delhi), wherein it was held that mere adoption of an incorrect valuation method, when classification and clearances are duly disclosed in ER-1 returns, does not amount to wilful suppression viii. It was finally prayed that the Department's appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP affixed and supplied for retail sale. The statutory returns were scrutinised and accepted by the jurisdictional authorities, and extensive correspondence took place as early as 2011 regarding SSI eligibility, brand name usage, and clearances. At no stage did the Department raise any objection regarding valuation under Section 4A. 8.3 We find that the reliance placed by the Department on CCE v. Precision Pipes & Profiles Co. Ltd. [2014 (302) ELT 184 (All.)] and CCE v. Peter & Miller Packers [2015 (319) ELT 631 (Mad.)] is misplaced, as those cases involved clear non-disclosure or concealment of material facts. In the present case, the relevant facts relating to classification, clearances, and turnover were fully disclosed in statutory r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of limitation under Section 11A is not sustainable. Whether the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the demand of Rs.1,18,40,175/- pertaining to the extended period? 9.1 Having held that the extended period under Section 11A is not invocable, the natural corollary is that the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation cannot be sustained. The adjudicating authority, after detailed examination of records, correspondence, and conduct of the respondent, came to the categorical finding that there was no suppression with an intent to evade duty, and accordingly confined the demand to the normal period from March 2014 to September 2014. 9.2 We find that this conclusion is fully supported by the evidence on record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they reflect a correct appreciation of the statutory scheme, the evidentiary record, and the conduct of both the assessee and the Department. 10.3 In the absence of any fresh material or compelling legal error pointed out by the Department, the appeal essentially seeks a re-appreciation of facts already examined and correctly decided. As such, we hold that the Department's appeal does not merit any consideration, and the impugned order dropping the extended period demand and confirming duty only for the normal period deserves to be upheld. 11.1 In view of the detailed findings recorded hereinabove, we hold that the non-adoption of MRP-based valuation under Section 4A by the respondent arose from a bona fide interpretation of law and n....