9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.09.2005 to 30.11.2006 and 16.03.2007 to 30.06.2007 and pertains to clearances made to M/s IBP Ltd.. M/s IBP Ltd. is a subsidiary of the appellant. The invoices issued by the appellant indicated two values - (i) "ZTVL", which is import parity price and (ii) "ZAVL", which is lower. The appellant paid the Central Excise duty adopting ZAVL for such clearance to M/s IBP. The Department was of the view that the Central Excise duty is required to be paid at ZTVL, since the transaction between IOCL and IBP are settled at ZTVL. On these lines, show-cause notices were issued which were decided by issuing of the impugned orders. The demand for duty stands confirmed along with interest and also penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions have been settled at ZTVL. He also argued that when there are clearances to subsidiary as well as independent buyers, the Central Excise duty is required to be paid as per the clearance to independent buyers as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. Commr. of Central Excise reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB). 6. In his rebuttal, the Representative of the Appellants, submitted that the decision of the Larger Bench cited by the Revenue, may not be applicable to the present case. It is his argument that the show-cause notice has made only one allegation that the appellant has recovered prices as per ZTVL from IBP, which is not supported by facts. Consequently, he submitted that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the invoices along with ZAVL only for evaluating the performances. ZAVL as duty has been paid is the price at which IBP is paid the duty.
10. After carefully perusing the records, we find that the Revenue's allegation that the appellant has realized the amount as per ZTVL from the subsidiary, has not been supported by any documentary evidences on record. In the absence of any documentary report for such allegation, we are of the view that the demand for differential duty based only on allegation, which is not supported by any documentary evidences, cannot be sustained.
11. In the result, both the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
(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
|
