Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Moti Laminates P. Ltd. on 3 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(96)ELT191(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. In the order impugned in the appeal by the department the Additional Collector has held on merits, that the assessee was not liable to pay the duty demanded in the notice. He has also held that the notice is barred by limitation.
2. We have heard the departmental representative.
3. The respondents claimed for the graduated levels of quantity discount available to customers for the quantities of decorative laminated sheets which it had manufactured was approved by the department. Part of its goods were sold through depots. When clearing the laminated sheets to the depots the respondent paid duty on a price calculated by applying the maximum rate of quantity discount Rs. 35 /- per thousand, available to purchases of more than 1,500 sheets. It also appears that the assessees passed on to the buyers maximum extent of discount. However this point is of significance in deciding the appeal.
4. The Additional Collector has noted that the respondent submitted to the department details of clearances of the goods to the depots and the discount claimed in the and that RT 12 returns. We therefore hold that the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A would not apply the notice demanding duty issued for clearances in 1986 and 1987 having been issued in November, 1989. This is sought to be challenged in the appeal on the ground that the respondent did not disclose to the department that it sold goods from the sale depot at particular levels of discount and this is nothing but suppression of facts and misdeclaration.
5. The respondent was not required by law to disclose to the department the prices at which it sold the goods from its depot, where the goods were taken after payment of duty. Therefore omission by the respondent to furnish this information would not amount to suppression of facts. There is nothing to suggest that the assessees wilfully made a wrong statement. We do not find sufficient material to interfere with this finding of the Additional Collector. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into other aspects of the case.
6. Appeal dismissed.