9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Suvarna, GM have filed the appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs, Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants having two units - one at Talasari (Maharashtra) and other in the Union Territory of Daman. At Talasari unit, the appellants were manufacturing HDPE barrels, skull barrels, lids and bungs and at Daman unit, the appellants are manufacturing HDPE barrels. They were paying duty on the said product at Talasari unit, which were being removed to Daman unit for undertaking operations such as de-burring, fitting of lids, printing where the goods were cleared on payment of duty after availing the Modvat credit to the duty paid at Talasari unit. 3. The issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Valuation Rules, 1975 and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 as the case may be on 'cost of production' basis, which is excess to the price to be determined. In that situation, he submitted that matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law. He also submitted that it is a case of revenue neutrality as whatever duty payable by the Talasari unit is available as credit at Daman unit. In that situation, extended period is also not invocable and the demand is also not sustainable. For this contention, he relied on the following case laws :- (i) Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) (ii) Jay Yushin Ltd. v. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department and the same has not been disputed by the Commissioner. We also find that mere filing the price declaration in wrong proforma does not amount to suppression of facts. Accordingly, we find that in this case, the extended period is not invocable and demand pertaining to the period 25-2-2000 to 20-6-2001 is not sustainable. As there is no suppression of facts, no penalty is leviable on the appellant and co-appellants as they have not suppressed the facts. 8. Further, we are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned DR that the valuation of the goods is to be done as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 and for that the appellants have to pay the excise duty on cost of production @115%. Accordingly, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
