9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics and cleared the same to their subsidiary M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. during the period from February 2003 to March 2004 on payment duty at the transaction value, that is', by adding 4% margin of profit to the manufacturing cost, instead of discharging duty on the value equal to 115%/110% of the cost of manufacture, as applicable during the relevant period in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 15.5.2006 invoking extended period of limitation for recovery of the differential duty of Rs. 13,80,542/- short paid along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is her contention that the removal of goods to their sister concern were disclosed in their ER-1 return filed from time to time. It is her further contention that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has rightly observed that there was no suppression of the facts on the part of the Respondents as all the facts were revealed to the department including the fact that Raghuvir Exim Ltd was their subsidiary, in their respective Balance Sheets. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the instant case. Further, she has submitted that their records had been periodically audited by the department during 2002-03 and 2003-04, and all the records including the Balance sheets of the said period, as directed by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and perused the record. The short issue raised by the Revenue in the present case is: whether the demand issued to the Respondent invoking extended period of limitation is sustainable or otherwise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his finding observed that the Respondents had cleared the fabrics to their subsidiary, M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd, a related person within the meaning of amended Sec.4(4)(c) of CEA,1994, on the transaction value, but were required to discharge the duty on the value determined as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, that is, 115%/110% of the cost of manufacture, as applicable during the relevant period. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that all the facts relating to the clearance of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue being devoid of merit is dismissed. 8. However, we find force in the argument of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue with regard to the merits of the case, in as much as, after the amendment to Section 4 with effect from 01.7.2000, subsidiary company has been specifically included in the scope of the definition of 'related person', hence, to establish mutuality of interest is no more relevant in such cases as held by this Tribunal in the case of Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. (supra), hence, the value to be determined as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 on clearances to their subsidiary M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. Consequently, the Cross-Objection filed by the Respondent being devoid of merit is rejected. Both Revenue's Appeal and Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
