Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(188)ELT342(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. After hearing both sides and on finding that the issue involved is valuation of the excisable goods cleared as per approved tenders of the appellant as called for by M/s. Telco, these holdings and inter connected understanding as found by the adjudicator in a case where by the notice issued, assessments made for the entire period of June 2000 to September 2003 were sought to be re opened by resorting to proviso to Rule 9 read with Costing Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
2. It is found that the appellants have produced charts to exhibit that the clearances have been effected at values much higher than the Rule 9 read with Rule 8 formula envisaged as well as less than those values also in certain cases and the Commissioner has not considered this plea, on facts or in law, to arrive at benefits on part of the assessee & not to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(l). No reasons exist to do so, if that be a fact, we would consider no deliberate attempt to evade tax and thus bar of limitation be available. Following the decision in Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore case the provisions of rules also may not he invokable and the values as per Section 4(1) need be accepted. In any case, if the formula of Rule 9 & Rule 8 is applicable, it has to be applied to all the removals, now being questioned, & credits and debits of excess & short payments of duty be adjusted to determine if any demand overall could be made since all the assessments over the period are being opened by this notice & only thereafter other liabilities, if any, on the appellants be arrived.
3. In view of the findings herein, we would, after waiver of pre-deposit, set aside the order & allow the appeal as remand to redetermine the issues. All issues being kept open to both sides.
4. Appeals allowed as remand.
(Pronounced in Court.)