ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 27.17 lacs approx, and penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs on the assessee and Rs. 1.00 lac on D.R. Patel, its director.
2. We have heard both sides.
3. Duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the cost of manufacturing out of low density poly-ethelene by the applicant, as a job worker, has been undeclared. Whatever be the position of the case on merits, (and prima facie there does not appear to be a strong case on merits) the applicant has a strong prima facie case on limitation. The price lists in which the value of the goods has been declared has been approved, as has been the RT-12 returns for the clearances. The notice is issued after 4 1/2 years invoking the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The reason for invoking the extended period is that the assessee did not declare in the price list the reason for reduction in the price of these goods as compared with the price of goods which the assessee had earlier cleared after manufacture on its own.
4. We are not able to find any provision in the law that specific reasons must be given by the assessee for reducing the price. The assessee had furnished the price in reply to the department in its price list. The department would have seen it straightaway that these values were lower than earlier declared. It was entirely open to the department to examine the reason for such a fall before approving the classification list finally. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the duty and penalties and stay their recovery.