9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished goods namely, Phosphorous Trichloride to their own unit situated at different location, on payment of duty at a value which is not to be in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 on the ground that the appellant had discharged the duty liability on the valuation of the product as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rues and were also clearing the same product to the independent buyers at a higher price. It is the case of the Revenue that price which is charged by the appellant to various independent customers needs to be applied and Rule 8 need not be followed with pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d AR on the other hand, after taking us through various findings recorded by the adjudicating authority, submits that the appellant being in an organized sector should have applied the provisions of law for the clearances effected by them. It is his submission that the claim of revenue neutrality is incorrect as the Apex Court in case of Star Industries Ltd. - 2015 (324) ELT 656 (SC) held that if exercise is revenue neutral then there is no need to file appeal. He reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 5.1 The issue involved in this case is whether the assessable value as adopted by the appellant based upon cost of production for di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that the clearance of the goods which were sold at the factory gate were totally different as they differed in technical specifications from those removed for captive consumption which was confirmed by the appellant itself vide its letter dated 21.02.2000 and this would depict clear intention on the part of the appellant to remove the goods by paying lesser duty. 7. ...... 8. Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondent to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act and apply the extended period of limitation. In view thereof, we confirm the demand insofar as it pertains to show cause notice dated 25.02.2000. However, as far as show cause notice dated 03.03.2001 is concerned, the demand from February, 1996 till February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
