Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1681 - CESTAT HYDERABADExtended period of limitation - Valuation - related party transaction - clearance of finished products partly to their sister concern and partly to un-related buyer - Department was of the view that the value required to be adopted by the respondent for the clearances made to their sister concern was required to be done in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with provisions of Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The respondents have filed ER returns in which the clearance and value have been disclosed. All the transactions are accounted in the books; and reflected in financial statements. All records were produced to internal audit (CA 2000) and AG Audit (CERA). For raising an allegation of wilful suppression of fact, there should be some positive act by which the respondent has suppressed fact with an intention to evade payment of duty. When they have obeyed instructions of department and paid the duty as per method of valuation directed by the department, it cannot be said that they are guilty of suppression of facts. The department has not been established any ingredient for invocation of extended period. Time limitation - Held that:- It is to be seen that the clearances were made to their sister concern. The department seems to have been confused by sister concern and related undertaking. When the clearances are made to sister concern, the respondent unit would be eligible for credit and entire situation is revenue neutral one. On the score also the respondent cannot be held to be guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty - there is no ground to interfere with the discussions and conclusion made by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|