ESCORTS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal is valuation of tractor parts cleared for captive consumption. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that the Tribunal in their own case by Final Order No. 1348 -1350/98 -A dt.5.10.98 reported in 1999(113)ELT.1002(Tri.) decided on merits against the assessee. He submits that in the said case, demand of duty was raised for the normal period. He further submits that the demand of duty in the present appeal relates to extended period from 1.5.89 to 30.9.92 vide show cause notice dt. 1.6.94, is barred by limitation.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various spare parts which were used captively by their Tractor Division. They were filing price list supported by costing certificate duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. It has been alleged that these goods were also sold through their other Division and therefore, it was proposed to be assessed at the same value at which these were sold in the open market in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. A show cause notice dt.29.4.93 was issued proposing demand of duty for the period 1.10.92 to 11.3.93, confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Tribunal vide final order dt.5.10.98. After one year of the said show cause notice, another show cause notice dt. 1.6.94 was issued for demanding duty for the period from 1.5.89 to 30.9.92 on the same issue, which is the subject matter in the present appeal.

(3.) LD . Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in the first show cause notice dt.29.4.93, there is no allegation of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the subsequent show cause notice dt.1.6.94 issued after one year of the earlier show cause notice with the allegation of suppression of fact for demand of duty of extended period of limitation on the same fact, cannot be sustainable. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ECE Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi and Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, A.P. reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465(SC).