TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants themselves who brought the fact of clearance of the goods to their sister unit, to the notice of the Revenue - it can be safely concluded that there was no positive mis-declaration or suppression on the part of the assessee with an intent to evade payment of duty, thus justifying the invocation of longer period - Decided in the favour of assessee - E/3485 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. For Appellant : Shri S.S. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Shri R.S. Srova, JDR Per : Mrs. Archana Wadhwa; It is seen that the appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Glass Limited was allowed by Tribunal vide its order No. A/2289/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 01.10.2008, on the point of Revenue neutrali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the cost of the said casting moulds was made and it was found that duty liability should be to the tune of Rs. 13,17,720/-. 4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated by issuance of show cause notice dated 08.10.2002, proposing confirmation of demand of duty along with interest as also for imposition of penalties. The said show cause notice stands culminated into the impugned order passed by Commissioner, confirming demand and interest and also imposing penalty of identical amount on the appellants. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. He submits that admittedly the goods were cleared by them to their own sister units, who were entitled to avail modvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority for invoking the longer period. Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed that appellant s submission that they themselves have informed the department does not dilute the offence, since the intimation has been sent to the department in the year 2000, whereas they have been clearing the goods since the year 1997. As such, it cannot be presumed that they were not aware of the fact that they were required to clear the goods under Central Excise invoices and only after payment of duty. As regards the Revenue neutral situation, he draws our attention to the Commissioner (Appeals) observations which, for better appreciation, we reproduce below :- It can be inferred from perusal of other two judgments in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue neutrality arrived at by the Tribunal in the order do not stands upset by the Hon'ble High Court. As such, he submits that the appeal is required to be allowed on this short ground itself. 9. We find that the earlier order of the Tribunal has been set-aside by the Hon'ble High Court in its totality. As such, we proceed to examine both the above issues involved in the present appeal. 10. Admittedly, the moulds were cleared by the appellants to its sister unit located at Jambusar. The above fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) reproduced above have not accepted the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the sole ground that the sister concerns registered with the Central Excise are separate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal had allowed the assessee s appeal on the ground that since the goods were cleared to sister concern, whatever duty was payable by the assessee was available as credit to their own sister concern, the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In view of the above, we hold that no demand is liable to be confirmed against the appellants on the above ground of Revenue neutrality. 11. As regards limitation, we find that it is the appellants who themselves had written to the jurisdictional Sup of Central Excise on 16.3.2000. The filing of the said letter by the appellant is not disputed. We have seen the said letter, which is as follows :- TO, The SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DATE : 16.03.2000 3RD FLOOR SAMMRUDDHI BUILDING, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
