BHURJI SUPER-TEK INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arose out of common order in appeal No. 437 -438/GRM/GGN/05 dated 30.11.2005 dealing with show cause notices dated 5.3.2002 and dated 18.10.2002. The first show cause notice proposed a demand of Rs. 3,88,401/ - for the period 1996 -97 to 2000 -01 and the second show cause notice proposed demand of Rs. 1,71,904/ - for the period from April 2001 to August, 2002. Both the show cause notices raised the issue as to whether free supplied moulds shall be subject to amortisation for determining assessable value.

(2.) THE Appellant by letter dated 11.6.01 informed the authorities below that w.e.f. 1.2.2000 cost of moulds was amortised (reference page 25 of appeal folder) and the manner of amortisation was explained by cost sheet (reference page 27 of the appeal folder). But the show cause notice alleged that before and after amortisation, assessable value of goods remained the same. Audit made during 18.4.2002, 20th April, 2000, had also pointed out that assessable value did not comprise amortisation cost and visit by the departmental officers on 12.3.01 (by which date the Assessee had followed the amortisation procedure) also resulted with the reporting of undervaluation of assessable value.

(3.) SO far as the second show cause notice is concerned, ld. Counsel submitted that because of the confusion of the law, it was not practicable for the Appellant to include cost of amortisation in assessable value to discharge its liability from April 2001 to August, 2002, for which show cause notice dated 18.10.2002 was issued. He relied on the decision of Nizam Sugar Ltd. delivered by Apex Court, 2008 (9) STR 314 (S.C.) to submit that when the things were within the knowledge of the Department and the law was in debatable stage, the case of suppression of the assessable value does not arise. He therefore, prayed that no penalty may be levied for both the periods covered by different show cause notices.