Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 642 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods manufactured by the appellant and transferred to their sister unit - Penalty imposed - captive consumption - whether further manufacture of finished goods has not been properly done in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation [Determination of Price of Excisable Goods] Rules, 2000? - Held that:- Commissioner examined the report submitted by the Assistant Director (Cost) and the CAS-4 details submitted by the appellants. He found that when total is calculated the difference works out to negligible amount. There was some difference of opinion regarding allocation of overhead expenses. Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner gave his finding in respect of each SCN. He applied the particulars available in the CAS-4 Certificates submitted by the appellant and after analyzing the various details came to the conclusion as found in the impugned order. In such a situation we find there is no ground for imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining the question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. We find that the Original authority did not substantiate the reason for imposing penalty under Rule 25 specially when he has found that there is no ground to allege any malafide on the part of the assessee for, payment of duty at the time of clearance. The issue involved is the application of correct accounting principles based on records maintained by the appellant. There is no scope for penalty in such circumstances. In fact the duty discharged is, overall on the higher side than finally determined and confirmed in the impugned order. Penalty deleted.
|