ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Duty demand is being resisted on the ground of limitation. It is pointed out that differential duty demand has been made invoking the extended period allowed under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis that appellants were guilty of wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise duty.

(2.) It is the submission of the appellants that they had discharged the whole duty as payable in accordance with the assessable values under price list approved by jurisdictional authorities and that there was no suppression of facts or that there was any intention to evade payment of duty. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the appellants had claimed that assessable value has to be worked out based on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. The method adopted for working out assessable value was to claim deductions from the sale price towards selling distribution expenses and selling profits. Deduction at 16% towards those costs and profits had also been allowed by jurisdictional authorities. The finding in the impugned order regarding suppression of facts is that the appellant had been realising certain amounts under debit notes when sales were carried out from their depots. These realizations were in regard to freight and forwarding expenses, financial/credit charges, insurance -cum -breakage charges. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that these collections being for activities far removed from manufacture, they had no relevance for the fixation of assessable value based on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. It is also being pointed out that the assessee had intimated in January, 1978, April, 1981 and March, 1983, the Central Excise Authorities about the private records kept by them. The records mentioned therein included inter alia, "Realisable/ reimbursable service charges debit notes kept by marketing division". It is, therefore, being submitted that there is no substance in the finding that relevant facts were suppressed with intent to evade payment of duty.

(3.) Learned Counsel has also referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in appellant's own case [1980 (6) E.L.T. 669] on the question of valuation of the goods and submitted that full details about the method of working out of assessable value came to be disclosed and considered in that proceedings and the Hon'ble High Court had also approved the assessment of the goods based on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit as worked out by the appellants.