ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, has filed appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Since the issue involved is similar and as such both the appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Manibhai and Brothers (Sleepers), Kharasalia, Post Vejelpur, District Panchamahals are engaged in the manufacture of Monoblock Prestressed concrete sleepers in their factory and supply the same to the Railways, falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff had opted for invoice base value under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. It appeared to the Railway Superintendent that the respondent had not included the value of malleable cast iron inserts which were supplied free of cost by the Railways for fixing as integral part of the sleepers manufactured by the respondents. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. The learned Assistant Collector had confirmed the demands of Rs. 4,44,428.80 and Rs. 1,95,480.00 totalling Rs. 6,40,108.80. The respondents had taken the plea that the value of the malleable cast iron inserts which were supplied free of cost for fixing as integral part of the sleepers manufactured by them was not includible in the assessable value and that they did not have the correct information regarding the actual price’ paid by the Railways for each insert to the inserts manufacturers. The respondents had relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Messrs Mysore Structural Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 60 decided on 26th October, 1984. The respondents have also disputed the value adopted by the Superintendent at Rs. 18.00. The value of the goods supplied as per the instructions of the Railways was Rs. 11.50 + 4% and the demands were worked out on the excess value. The learned Assistant Collector did not accept the contention of the respondents and had held that the value of the inserts had to be included in the assessable value on the correctness of the value aspect at Rs. 18.00. He had observed that as per the Railways the value was Rs. 11.50 + 4% and as such this value did not represent the real money value of MCI inserts and he was of the view that the price of Rs. 18.00 was the normal prevailing price and had further observed that the respondents themselves have admitted that they were not aware of the correct price. He was of the view that the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act invoked by the Superintendent while demanding duty was in order. He had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,44,428.80 and Rs. 1,95,480.00 totalling Rs. 6,40,108.80.
3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respondents had filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals),’Bombay. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had followed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mysore Structural Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 60 and had allowed the appeal.
4. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned Senior Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal memo. Shri Doiphode has argued that inserts are embedded in the concrete sleepers and as such the same have to be included in the assessable value. He has referred to condition No. (iv) of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. Condition No. (iv) of the said Notification lays down that the invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the manufacturer or any person associated in business with the manufacturer and the buyer or any person associated in business with the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods. Shri Doiphode, the learned SDR further submits that the inserts were supplied free of cost by the Railways and the Department was not aware of all these facts. He has also referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 18% (SC) and has argued that intrinsic value has to be taken for assessable purposes and the value has to be taken under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that : “Value of the entire end-product to be taken into account and not only the difference in value resulting because of process and the value of processed fabrics would include value of ‘grey fabrics’ supplied to the independent processors for processing and the hardship is irrelevant in taxing statutes and the courts cannot grant concessions or benefits in the case of taxation”. Shri Doiphode, the learned SDR has pleaded that the value has to be taken under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. He has pleaded that the cost of the inserts should be added. In support of his argument he has referred to the following judgments: 1985 (22) E.L.T. 159 Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Oswal Agro Mill Ltd., Ludhiana, where the Tribunal had held that Notification No. 120/75-C.E. was a statutory notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the notification could not go beyond the provisions of Section 4 which lays down the principles and guidelines for determination of assessable value of excisable goods and after applying the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 18% the Tribunal had held that in determining the invoice price, the same principles have to be followed with respect to freight and transit insurance charges even where an assessee avails himself of the invoice price procedure vide Notification No. 120/75-C.E. The learned SDR further argued that the latter judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Mis. Daya Engineering Works (P) Ltd., was not the correct judgment. He has referred to internal page 4 of the said judgment vide order No. 55/1988-D, dated 20th January, 1988 in appeal No. E/2358/84-D. In that case the Tribunal had observed that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhubaneswar v. Orissa Concrete Products (P) Ltd., 1986 (26) E.L.T. 284 did not relate to valuation under Notification No. 120/75-CE. He has referred to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 913 where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had held that the assessee was supplying railway monoblock concrete sleepers and at the time of the manufacture the same were embedded with malleable cast iron inserts and fastenings which formed integral parts of the commodity manufactured by the assessee, and the value of the monoblock sleepers for the purpose of charging of duty of excise under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act could not be conceived of without taking into consideration the cost of the inserts and the fasteners and in that case under the contract the assessee was not to supply any parts of the monoblock sleeper but was to supply the finished monoblock sleepers in which inserts and fasteners were to be embedded at the time of the manufacture of these sleepers, because the plain concrete slab without containing the inserts and fasteners could not be used as railway sleeper as it would not hold the rails on it. Therefore, while determining the valuation of monoblock sleeper for charging the duty the excise authorities were quite justified in adding the cost of inserts and fasteners under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Doiphode, the learned SDR has stated that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is correct and the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment was discussed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 913.
6. On the time bar, Shri Doiphode has aruged that there was suppression of facts on the part of the respondents and extended period of limitation was applicable and the respondents had not brought the contract to the knowledge of the Department. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal of the Department.
7. In reply Shri Dave, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has referred to Notification No. 120/75-C.E. and has aruged that the Notification is independent to the provisions of Section 4 and the exemption notification was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty is to be charged on the invoice price. Shri Dave, the learned advocate, has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Sural and Ors. reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in a taxing statute there was no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of an exemption he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a court of law or equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable or necessary implication. The learned advocate has argued that there was no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice and also mention of price. The show cause notice was very vague and there is no violation of conditions No. (iii) and (iv) of the Notification. Shri Dave, the learned advocate, has argued that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 913 is in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has laid great reliance on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Mysore Structurals Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 60. He has argued that the respondents’ case is fully covered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment and the respondents fully satisfy the conditions laid down in the Notification. Shri Dave, the learned advocate has argued that the judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Orissa Concrete Products (P) Ltd. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 284 is not applicable in the case of the respondents, as the said judgment is under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and there is no reference of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. He has also referred to another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 671 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had held that the “Invoice price excluding cost of materials to be the assessable value when materials supplied free of cost by customer to manufacturer and customer not related person and the railways had supplied materials free of cost to the manufacturer and in the invoice price there was reference of contracts”. The Tribunal had held that the value of the materials supplied by the Railways could not be included in the assessable value. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. Alternatively, he has pleaded that in case the Revenue’s plea is accepted, then the matter may be remanded to the lower authorities and in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) review petition is pending before the Supreme Court.
8. In reply Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned SDR has argued that the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court gets over-ruled by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.). Shri Doiphode has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
9. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The value of the goods has to be taken for the purpose of assessment in terms of provisions of Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the same is reproduced below :-
“(d) “value”, in relation to any excisable goods, –
(i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee.
Explanation:- In this sub-clause, “packing” means the wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool reel or wrap beam or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods are wrapped, contained or wound;
(ii) does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject to such rules as may be made, the trade discount (such discount not being refundable on any account whatsoever) allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade at the time of removal in respect of such goods sold or contracted for sale.
Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-clause, the amount of the duty of excise payable on any excisable goods shall be the sum of total of-
(a) the effective duty of excise payable, on such goods under this Act; and (b) the aggregate of the effective duties of the excise payable under other Central Acts, if any, providing for the levy of duties of excise on such goods, and the effective duty of excise on such goods under each Act referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be, -
(i) in a case where a notification or order providing for any exemption (not being an exemption for giving credit with respect to, or reduction of duty of excise on such goods equal to, any duty of excise already paid on the raw material or component parts used in the production or manufacture of such goods) from the duty of excise under such Act is for the time being in force, the duty of excise computed with reference to the rate specified in such Act in respect of such goods as reduced so as to give full and complete effect to such exemption; and
(ii) in any other case, the duty of excise computed with reference to the rate specified in such Act in respect of such goods.”
A simple reading of the above sub-section shows that in terms of explanation (i) in a case where a notification or order providing for any exemption from the duty of excise under such Act is for the time being in force, the duty of excise computed with reference to the rate specified in such Act in respect of such goods as reduced so as to give full and complete effect to such exemption. The respondents have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975. For the proper appreciation of the terms of the notification, the notification is reproduced below :-
“120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975
For goods falling under this item, assessable value would be their invoice price.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excice Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), cleared from the factory of manufacture, on sale, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price (excluding duty and local taxes, if any, included in such price) charged by the manufacturer from the sale of such goods:
Provided that the aforesaid exemption shall be admissible only if :-
(i) the manufacturer files with the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction a written declaration to the effect that he opts to avail of the said exemption;
(ii) the manufacturer avails of the said exemption uniformly in respect of all goods, sold by him, which fall under the Item aforesaid;
(iii) the manufacturer certifies that the price referred to in the invoice represents the price actually charged by him for the relevant sale and that the price is the sole consideration for the sale;
(iv) the invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the manufacturer or any person associated in business with the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods;
(v) no part of the proceeds of the subsequent sale, use or disposal of such goods accrues either directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of the manufacturer or any person associated in business with him.
Provided further that a manufacturer shall be entitled to withdraw his option referred to in clause (i) of the preceding proviso after giving to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdicton, a prior notice in writing of at least 7 days and where the manufacturer has withdrawn his option, he shall, unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs be precluded from availing of the aforesaid exemption during the remaining period of the relevant financial year.”
A simple perusal of the proviso (iii) and (iv) of the notification will show that the manufacturer certifies that the price referred to in the invoice represents the price actually charged by him for the relevant sale and that the price is the sole consideration for sale and the invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the manufacturer or any person associated in business with the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahmundry v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry and another reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 210 had held that “Exemption notification issued under Rule 8 does not take away the levy of duty imposed by Section 3, but only grants exemption from levy of duty in specified circumstances and to specified extent”. Therefore, it cannot be said that because of exemption levy of duty is scrapped. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court hi the case of Golden Press v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and another reported in 1987(27) E.L.T. 273 (A.P.) had held that “Exemption notification – Interpretation of – Not to be construed liberally but to be construed to effectuate object of notification”. Relevant extract from para No. 15 from the said judgment is reproduced below :-
“…While we agree that an exemption notification should be so construed as to effectuate its object and underlying intent, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exemption notification should be construed liberally. These notifications should not be so construed as to travel beyond their confines and as covering items which were never intended to be covered by the authority issuing the notification. In this behalf, the scheme of the Act, the tariff entry and the language of the notification have all to be taken into consideration.”
In the matter before us, before the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 can be extended, the respondents have to satisfy that they satisfy the conditions laid down in the Notification. A simple reading of proviso (iii) and (iv) of the Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 shows that the respondents do not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Notification. The said notification stipulates that the price of the goods is the sole consideration for sale. We observe that in the instant case price of the concrete sleepers embedded with MCI inserts is not the sole consideration, because the respondent company is getting MCI inserts free of charge. If the respondents had been using their own inserts, the price of the concrete sleepers with MCI inserts would have been definitely different and higher than what it is now at present when it has been supplied free of charge by the Railways. The ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985(20) E.L.T. 179 (SC) clearly applies in this case, wherein it has been held that intrinsic value of the goods which is relevant for the purpose of charging duty on goods is liable to ad valorem assessment. Para Nos. 47 to 50 from the said judgment are reproduced below :-
“47. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are carrying on only the processing activity and the wholesale cash price is not theirs on the entire product. Section 4 of the Act is the section which deals with the valuation of excise goods for the purpose of charging duty of the same would be applicable. Where for the purpose of calculating assessable profits, a notional and conventional sum is laid down by the legislature to be arrived at on a certain basis, it is not permissible for the courts to engraft into it any other deduction or allowance or addition or read it down on the score that the said deduction or allowance or addition was authorised elsewhere in the Act or in the Rules. A conventional charge should be measured by its own computation and not by facts relating to other method of computation. The circumstances that thereby the benefit of any exemption granted by the legislature may be lost and that in some cases hardship might result are not matters which would influence courts on the construction of the statute. A tax payer subject is entitled only to such benefit as is granted by the legislature. Taxation under the Act is the rule and benefit and exemption, the exception. And in this case there is no hardship. When the textile fabrics are subjected to the processes like bleaching, dyeing and printing etc. by independent processors, whether on their own account or on job charges basis, the value of the purposes of assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act will not be the processing charges alone but the intrinsic value of the processed fabrics which .’ is the-price at which such fabrics are sold for the first time in the wholesale market. That is the effect of Section 4 of the Act. The value would naturally include the value of grey fabrics supplied to the independent processors for the processing. However, excise duty, if any, paid on the grey fabrics will be given proforma credit to the independent processors to be utilised for the payment on the processed fabrics in accordance with the Rule 56A or 96D of the Central Excise Rules, as the case may be.
48. Read in that context and in the context of the prevalent practice followed so long until the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Real Honest case, there is no hardship and no injustice to the petitioners or the manufacturers of grey fabrics. The fact that the petitioners are not the owners of the end product is irrelevant. Taxable event is manufacture not ownership. See in re The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1978 and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – (1964) 3 SCR 787 to 822.
49. The conclusion that inevitably follows that in view of the amendment made in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as well as the substitution of new Item 191 and Item 22(1) in Excise Tariff in place of the original Items, the contentions of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act clearly indicates that the object of the entries in the First Schedule is firstly to specify excisable goods and secondly to specify rates at which excise duty will be levied. Reference has already been made to Rule 56A. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A, it is expressly provided that a manufacturer will be given credit of the duty which is already paid on the articles used in the manufacture subject to certain conditions. It is stated before us that excise duty will be charged on processed printed material. Processors will be given credit for the duty already paid on the grey cloth by the manufacturer of the grey cloth. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India and Anr. (Writ Petition Nos. 622 and 623 of 1979) 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1736 (Bom.) are correct. The views expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Vijay Textiles v. Union of India insofar as it held that the processed fabrics could only be taxed under residuary entry and not under Item 191 or Item 22 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff cannot be sustained.
50. We are also unable to accept the view of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Real Honest Textile and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 586 to 592 of 1979).”
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 913 had held that “The petitioner supplies to the Railways monoblock concrete sleeper in which at the time of manufacture are embedded malleable cast iron inserts and fastening which form integral parts of the commodity manufactured by the petitioner. Therefore, the valuation of monoblock sleeper for the purpose of charging of duty of excise under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be conceived of without taking into consideration the cost of the inserts and fasteners. In fact, in the present case, under the contract the petitioner was not to supply any parts of the monoblock sleepers but was to supply the finished monoblock sleepers in which inserts and fasteners were to be embedded at the time of the manufacture of these sleepers, because, the plain concrete slab without containing the inserts and fasteners could not be used as railway sleeper as it would not hold the rails on it. Therefore, while determining the valuation of monoblock sleeper for charging the duty the excise authorities were quite justified in adding the cost of inserts and fasteners under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. (1983 E.L.T. 733 relied upon; 1985 (20) E.L.T. 60 dissented.)
“If the petitioner did not supply the value of inserts, despite persistent demands, the Department could rightly take the view that there has been a wilful suppression of facts for the purposes of evading payment of excise duty and accordingly, the extended period of five years for issue of show cause notice will apply and the show cause notice was within time. This view cannot be said to be either based on no evidence or perverse so as to require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In para No. 5 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had discussed the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Mysore Structural Limited \.Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 60. Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30th April, 1975 also lays down that invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the manufacturer or any person associated in business with the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods. The contract in the instant case between the respondent company, manufacturer and the Railways, the buyer, stipulates that the latter was to supply MCI inserts free. This contract influenced the price of the railway concrete sleepers embedded with MCI inserts. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the value of MCI inserts should be included in the value of the railway concrete sleepers. We do not agree with the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Daya Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
10. Now coming to the valuation aspect of the inserts adopting the value at Rs. 18.00, we agree with the observation of the adjudicating authority that the value of Rs. 11.50 + 4% and this value did not represent the real money value of MCI inserts, as the respondents had themselves admitted that they were not aware of the correct price. Accordingly, we confirm that Rs. 18.00 was the normal prevailing price. We confirm the findings of the adjudicating authority.
11. Now coming to the issue of time bar, we would like to observe that the respondent company did not produce the copy of the contract with the Railways at the time of filing of the declaration under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., nor did the invoice mention that MCI inserts had been supplied free of charge. Therefore, its value has not been included. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaishri Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1989 (1) SCALE 602 had held that the extended period of limitation was applicable. Relevant portion from paras No. 10 and 11 reproduced below :-
“10. Therefore, we have to find out whether there was any fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts for the Department to be justified to claim duty beyond a period of six months. This is a question of fact. It was found by the Tribunal that it was not possible for the appellant to contend that the appellant had made a correct statement. The Tribunal noted that the appellant could hardly contend that it discharged the onus of making correct declaration if it had withheld the description which was commonly used in respect of the goods not only by itself, but also by those from whom it bought or to whom it sold the products. The appellant itself was both buying and selling these nuts and as such there was no conceivable reason why these nuts were described as end-fittings in the declaration to the Department. It may be noted that in the declaration it was so described. The Tribunal was of the view, and it cannot be said not without justification that these goods should have been described as nuts because the appellant itself had treated these as nuts. Therefore, from this conduct suppression is established. The facts that the Department visited the factory of the appellant and they should have been aware of the production of the goods in question, were no reason for the appellant not to truly and properly to describe these goods. As a matter of fact, not only did the appellant, as found by the Tribunal, described these goods properly but also gave a misleading description.
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in classifying the goods under Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff and in upholding the demand of the duty for a period beyond six months as contemplated by Section 11-A of the Act ….”
In the matter before us, the respondent company did not produce a copy of the contract at the time of the filing of the declaration under Notification No. 120/75-CE and the invoice also did not mention that MCI inserts had been supplied free of charge by the Railways. In view of these observations, we are of the view that the extended period of limitation is applicable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order passed by the Assistant Collector.
12. During the course of arguments, the learned advocate had made a prayer for the remand of the matter. We do not find any justification for the same.
13. In the result, the revenue’s appeals are allowed.