Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1030 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1030 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Duty demand - extended period of limitation - Misdeclaration of value - Intention to evade duty - Held that:- Appellants informed the Dept of the revision of the price time to time by various letters. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue drew the attention of the 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 Autho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecided 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 limitation. 2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Detergent Cake, Detergent Pow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

round that they have not correctly determined the value of the goods cleared during the period 1.4.2004 and 30.6.2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudicating Authority order on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Respondent paid duty on the revised value with effect from 1.7. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e and written submissions made by the appellants as well as the case laws cited by them and find that the appellants is a public limited company and manufacturing Sulphuric Acid, Oleum which are also transferred to their another/sister units on payment of central excise duty, that the value determined for the said clearance by the appellants under Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 ie., 110% of the cost of their production based on the cost of production of such good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nvoking proviso to Sec 11A(1) of the CEA, 1944 alongwith interest under Sec. 11 AB of the CEA, 1944 and also proposed penalty under 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ive w.e.f. 1.4.2003 but they started paying duty based on revised cost of production w.e.f 1.7.2003 on the basis of Audited Balance Sheet received by them on 18.6.2003. Thus it is established beyond doubt that the appellants have bonafide belief, which is duly supported by the fact it was never objected by the Dept in the year 2000-01, 2003-04 that the duty is required to be paid on revised cost of production only after balance sheet is finalised not w.e.f 1st April. I thus hold that there is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the same to another unit. Hence also extended period is not invokable. I therefore hold that the demand is time barred as proviso to Sec 11A(1) of the CEA., 1944 is not in this case. 7. We find that the appellants informed the Dept of the revision of the price time to time by various letters. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It is observed that there is no consistency in the methods of valuation as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version