TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware of the fact that they are liable to pay duty, they should have voluntarily come forward to pay duty. There is no instance which can point out that the Appellant were not aware of duty to be paid and the method of valuation of goods. However having aware of the same and then too non payment of duty cannot lead to dropping of demands on ground of revenue neutrality. The demands cannot be set aside on grounds of revenue neutrality or time bar. Further there is no reason to waive the penalty as it is not the case of non payment of duty due to lack of knowledge on the part of Appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. E/669/2008 - A/86354/2018 - Dated:- 11-5-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per CAS 4 standards. The Appellant later submitted cost certificate to the revenue. On comparison of cost certificate dt. 22.09.2006 for year 2003 - 04 with the cost certificate dt. 01.08.2003 previously furnished by the Appellant on 11.08.2003 and which was basis for determining the assessable value and payment of duty thereon during the year 2003 04, it was observed that the assessable value previously declared was not proper and the central excise duty was paid on lesser assessable value. It was also found that the certificate dt. 01.08.2003 and certificate dt. 22.09.2006 provided the material for the year 2003 04 and the certificate dt. 25.04.2005 and dt. 22.09.2006 provided the other percentage cost factors from the audited bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. A/86741 - 42/17/EB dt. 21.03.2017 in their own case wherein the demand was dropped by the Tribunal. He submits that the fact about the method of determination of cost of production was in knowledge of Revenue as may be observed from their letter dt. 11.08.2003 to the revenue and hence the demand is time barred also. He also submits that for the same reason, no penalty can be imposed upon them. 3. Shri S.V. Nair, ld. AC (AR) appearing for the revenue supports the impugned order and reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find that in the present case the Appellant themselves in 2003 disclosed the department the costing of the goods and paid duty thereupon. However it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not aware of duty to be paid and the method of valuation of goods. However having aware of the same and then too non payment of duty cannot lead to dropping of demands on ground of revenue neutrality. In such case we find that as far as demands are concerned the Appellant is liable to pay duty and we do not find any justifiable reason to drop the same. Further the revenue itself carried out the investigation which brought out the facts of less duty. We thus find that the demands cannot be set aside on grounds of revenue neutrality or time bar. Further there is no reason to waive the penalty as it is not the case of non payment of duty due to lack of knowledge on the part of Appellant. Thus looking to the facts of the case, we do not find an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
