TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsumer therefore the valuation based on MRP will not apply. The appellants have disclosed the valuation method in their return from where the Department discovered the valuation method followed by the appellant. Further, the appellant paid the differential duty on the ground that the same would be available to their sister concern as CENVAT credit. Also, it is found that against the buyer which is a sister concern, separate proceedings were commenced for denying the CENVAT credit on duty paid by the appellant but the same was resolved in favor of the purchaser. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/17/2009-DB - Final Order No.21812/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 4 and hence the appellant had short paid duty to the tune of ₹ 8,94,277/- and Education Cess of ₹ 17,884/-. Thereafter, the Range Superintendent assured the appellants that on payment of duty and interest, there would be no further proceeding commenced against the appellant. The appellant solely based on this assurance and the fact that the duty paid by them would be available to the buyer which is their sister concern as CENVAT credit, agreed to pay duty amount along with interest and paid the same vide TR Challan No. 005 dated 25.08.2006 and debited the interest vide SI. No. 4 in PLA dated 01.09.2006. Thereafter, after the expiry of 10 months, a SCN was issued to the appellants demanding the duty along with interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full disclosure in their return that they were removing the Kite detergent bar weighing 75 grams after valuing it under Section 4 but the lower appellate authority has ignored this admitted fact found in the SCN itself. He further submitted that when the appellants have paid differential duty along with interest much before the issue of SCN and there was no suppression on the part of the appellant, then the Department should not have issued the SCN by invoking the extended period and also imposing the equal penalty. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) CCE Vs. Trishul Research Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (144) ELT 204 (Tri. Del.). (ii) Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2007 (215) ELT 327 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation method followed by the appellant. Further, we find that the appellant paid the differential duty on the ground that the same would be available to their sister concern as CENVAT credit. We also find that against the buyer which is a sister concern, separate proceedings were commenced for denying the CENVAT credit on duty paid by the appellant but the same was resolved in favour of the purchaser which is reported in CCE Vs. Dynavista Industries cited supra. Therefore, in view of the discussions above and relied upon the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. (Order was pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
