TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s / details. In spite of this, the SCN is seen issued in March 2007 on the very same ground invoking extended period alleging suppression of facts, which in our view, is not acceptable - there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/380/2008 - 41736/2017 - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Santhana Gopal, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B Balamurugan AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturers of cotton woven fabric falling under sub heading No.5207.20 and cotton yarn (twisted/doubled) falling und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Thus the appellants had cleared 4,64,442 Kgs. of yarn of various counts to their sister concern M/s.Super Spinning Mills, Unit D during the period from May 2003 to July 2004 by adopting an assessable value of ₹ 5,94,15,022/- which was lower than the value of ₹ 6,60,78,164/- determined in terms of the costing certificate produced by them and also in accordance with Section 4 (1) (b) read with Rule 9 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. This resulted in short payment of duty on differential value of ₹ 66,63,142/- which works out to ₹ 6,13,009/- [Rs.5,33,051/- (BED) and ₹ 79,958/- [AED T T]]. Thus the appellants appeared liable to pay the differential duty of ₹ 6,13,009/- [Rs.5,33,051/- (BED) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of determination of value i.e., cost of production and the dispute is only regarding the quantum. 4.3. During the impugned period, the assessee adopted the total value of ₹ 5,94,15,022/- and paid excise duty on that value. As per the department, the value should be ₹ 6,60,78,164/- i.e. ₹ 66,63,142/- more. The quantity involved is 4,62,442 kgs. This data shows that around 11% is the value increase which the department seeks. When excise duty is paid on the value of ₹ 5.94 crores, mens rea cannot be attributed for not paying excise duty on ₹ 66 lakh. 4.4 The internal audit department visited the appellant and alleged that the lesser value was adopted in the month of May, 2005. The appellant replied with rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had paid a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs towards differential excise duty as pre-deposit. It is prayed that the appeal be allowed with consequential relief. 5. Against this, the Learned AR, Shri B.Balamurugan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He stressed that appellants had suppressed facts and that therefore the Show Cause Notice issued invoking extended period is legal and proper. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The main arguments put forward by the appellant is on limitation and revenue neutrality. It is clear from the records that an internal audit was conducted in May 2005. Against the audit objection raised, the appellant had replied with reasons / details. In spite of this, the Show Cause Notice is seen issued i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
