TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of production - differential duty demand alongwith Interest paid - Held that:- The appellant was admittedly adopting the assessable value as cost of production of the goods, whereas the same were required to be adopted as 110% of the cost. Inasmuch as the goods were being sent to their own sister unit, who were availing Cenvat credit of duty paid by the appellant, this could be a bona fide mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, they were required to pay duty on one hundred and ten per cent of the cost of production, they paid duty only on the cost of production. Subsequently, this irregularity was detected by the department. The appellant even before the issue of show cause notice, paid the differential duty of ₹ 3,34,466/- along with interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the confirmation of demand of duty or interest and the only challenge is to imposition of penalty of ₹ 3,34,466/- imposed upon them under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. He submits that the goods were being cleared by them to their own sister unit who were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of the same. As such the entire exercise was revenue neutral, in which case there ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty. The appellants were paying duty of around ₹ 20.00 Crore per annum and it cannot be said that the duty to the tune of around ₹ 3.00 Lakhs was intended to be evaded by them. As such while upholding the confirmation of demand of duty and interest, we set aside the penalty imposed upon them and allow the appeal to that extent. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
