THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI LAJJA RAM, MEMBER (T) SUBURBAN ENGG. WORKS (CAL.) PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as under : -

(2.) ARGUING on the appeal, Shri A.C. Kar, learned Advocate put forth the submissions in respect of limitation only. He fairly conceded that the total value of the excisable goods was required to be taken into consideration while claiming the exemption limit of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. However, he submitted that the appellants have a strong case on the point of limitation inasmuch as there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellants and the entire information was being given by them to the Department. Drawing attention to the RT 12 returns filed by them with the department, he submitted that two different values i.e. one on which duty was being paid by them on the gate passes, which was inclusive of job charges and the cost of raw -materials and Second AD the invoice -value which was only reflecting the job charges, were being shown by them in their RT 12 returns. As such, all the papers and the requisite information was available with the department. He also submitted that they were also filing all the invoices along with the returns and as such it cannot be said that they were having any mala fide intention to suppress the clearance of reaching of Rs. 30.00 lakhs from the department. It was only because of the bona fide belief on their part that only the job charges are required to be taken into consideration for computing the initial exemption limit of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, they were doing so. In support of his above submission, he relied upon the following decisions : -

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, Shri T. Premkumar, learned S.D.R. submitted that it is not a case where the appellant firm was absolved of their responsibility by showing two different values in the RT -12 returns. He submitted that the charges against the appellants are that they had availed the benefit of Rs. 30.00 lakhs under Notification No. 175/86 by wrongly computing the said clearances of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. He submitted that the Department, on receipt of every months RT -12 returns, is not expected to add the value of clearance in a particular month and arrive at the exemption limit. He submitted that the Explanation I to Notification No.175/86 is to the effect that the values of clearances have to be computed under Section 4. The appellants were paying duty on the assessable value arrived at under Section 4 read with Rule 6(b)(ii), but while computing the total clearance, instead of taking the said assessable value on which the duty was being paid by them, they took into consideration only the job charges. This modus operandi adopted on the part of the appellants, clearly reflects upon their mala fide intention. The appellants were well aware that the duty in respect of the excisable goods manufactured on job work basis, was required to be paid on the assessable value inclusive of the cost of the raw -materials, and as such, it cannot be accepted that they were not aware of the Explanation I to Notification No. 175/86 which was very clear and unambiguous in its terms. He also submitted that in RT 12 returns filed by the appellants, the value has been shown under the column Tariff Value - whereas the value under Section 4 was required to be shown by them. The same has been disclosed as nil. This information is clearly misleading and reflects upon the methodology adopted by the appellants. He in support of his submission, relied upon the following decisions : -