TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In other words, it is noticed that the appellant informed the Department time to time of variation of price and the Department was well aware of the method of price as declared by the respondent. Thus, there is no suppression of fact with the intent to evade payment of duty. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : E/709/2007 - ORDER No. A/10764 / 2015 - Dated:- 13-4-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative For The Revenue : Shri M A Patel, Consultant Per : Mr.P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was set aside, as the demand is barred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation would be invoked, as the assessee had not declared values. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication Order. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal as under: a) Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd vs. CCE., Thane - 2104.300.ELT.571 (Tri.Mum.) b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala vs. Steel Industries Kerala Ltd - 2005.188.ELT.33(Tri.Bang.) c) Noble Detective and Security Services P Ltd vs CST, Ahmedabad - 2014.34.STR.299 (Tri.Ahmd) 5. On the other hand the Learned Consultant for the respondent submits that the amount involved in this case is below ₹ 5,00,000/- and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed in view of Board Circulars No. F/390/Misc., 163/210 dtd 29.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 25 of the CER, 2002 read with Sec 11AC of CEA, 1944. From the correspondence which appellants had with the Deptt it is observed that they have been regularly intimating the method and manner of valuation of the goods cleared to the sister/another units vide their letters dated 4.7.2002, 10.7.2002, 20.7.2002 and 8.9.2002. In fact prior to the financial year 2004-05, the appellants have revised the cost of production of the goods cleared to another/other units based on cost of production of 1999-2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2000 but did not pay duty on the revised cost of production either w.e.f. 1.4.2000 or w.e.f. 1.7.2000 (the date on which Valuation Rules, 2000 came into force) but they started paying duty on revised cost w.e.f. 22.7.2000 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bench to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It is observed that there is no consistency in the methods of valuation as claimed by the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority had elaborately discussed the inconsistency of the valuation methods. In our considered view, the inconsistency of the valuation methods cannot be treated as suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In other words, it is noticed that the appellant informed the Department time to time of variation of price and the Department was well aware of the method of price as declared by the respondent. Thus, there is no suppression of fact with the intent to evade payment of duty. We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
