9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt amount of personal penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC apart from directing payment of interest under Section 11AB. 2. Shri Bagaria, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the dispute involved in the present appeal relates to the valuation of the various items manufactured by them and sent to their sister unit at Santragachi. Elaborating on his arguments he submits that Santragachi unit placed an order dt. 4-12-95 for supply of 1194 sets of cast, steel bogies at Rs. 64,500/- per set under their order dt. 7-2-95. He submits that inasmuch as the said price was immediately preceding the contract between the appellant and the Railway Ministry, the same was picked up for entering into contract between the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was entered by them after a month of the contract with their sister concern, the price was only to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- per set. The Commissioner has given no reasons as to why this immediately after entered contract with M/s. Taxmaco should be ignored and the subsequent contract should be given precedence. He submits that they were fully justified to assess the goods at Rs. 64,500/- based upon the immediately previous contract with the Ministry of Railways. 4. A part of the demand has been confirmed on the identical ground in respect of high tensile buffer couplers. The appellant entered into a contract with their Santragachi factory on 4-12-95 for supply of 1194 sets @ Rs. 19,950/- per piece. Thereafter a contract with M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal's decisions in the case of Collector v. M/s. Kay Gee Kumar & Co. - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 351; M/s. Poysha Industrial Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 141 and M/s. P.A.C. Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 131 laying down that if there is a gap of few months between two indents, the prices under the two contracts cannot be held to be comparable. 6. The amount of Rs. 63,700/- (Rupees sixty three thousand seven hundred) has been confirmed against the appellant by enhancing the assessable value of back stops supplied to their Santragachi factory at Rs. 475/- per piece on the ground that identical goods were supplied to M/s. A.D. Electro Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 600/- per piece. The appellants' contention is that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenges the order on the point of limitation by submitting that there was no fraud or collusion or suppression of facts or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. All relevant facts fully and truely disclosed to the department and all the clearances were made from the factory after complying with the statutory procedural formalities. Copies of Central Excise invoices were filed along with RT-12 returns and the fact that the appellant had entered into a contract with their sister unit at Santragachi at the price reflected in to contract was very-well known to the Revenue. In these circumstances there was no justification for invocation of longer period. He also challenges the imposition of personal penalty and confirmation of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered between the appellant and M/s. Taxmaco Ltd. The prices in the contracts entered into in future date cannot have any bearing on the prices contracted prior contracts. When the contract was entered between the appellant and its sister unit, rates at which the future contracts would be entered into by the appellant with their customers was not available. As such it is always the immediately preceding contract which would form the basis of arriving at the prices, while entering into any contract with the sister unit. Inasmuch as the prices adopted by the appellant was based upon the earlier contract entered with the Ministry of Railways, we do not find any irregularity with the same. Accordingly we hold that the prices adopted by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice has actually been paid to the assessees, even though higher value was declared in the price declaration, the duty is required to be paid at a lower price as per the sale invoices. By following the ratio of the earlier decision we set aside the confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 14,570/- (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred seventy).
13. Inasmuch as the demand of duty confirmed against the appellant has been set aside on merits, we are not giving our opinion on the point of limitation as the same would be only of academic interest.
14. In view of the foregoing we also do not find any justification for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
