Case Law Details
Raychem RPG Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
We are not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Commissioner on the issue of limitation. Undisputedly all the facts were in the knowledge of the revenue and in fact have been corresponded between the revenue and appellant since 1993. For the clearance of the said goods either by adopting the value determined on the basis of cost construction method prior to 1994, appellants would have filed Price List as per Rule 173 C of the erstwhile Central excise Rules, 1944 and thereafter price declarations with the department. These price lists would have been considered and approved by the appropriate authorities throughout. Commissioner does not deny the correspondences between the appellant and the revenue since 1993 on the issue. When the entire issue was in knowledge of the revenue since 1993, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the Commissioner for invoking extended period of limitation in the present case. Since we do not find any merits in the order invoking extended period of limitation, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
These appeals are directed against order in original No. 09-10/PD/TH-II/2008 dated 30.05.2008 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane II. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has held as follows:
“ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
