9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer of sponge iron. The appellant had reportedly due to financial losses, stopped its production activity during the period from March 2010 to September 2011. M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., New Delhi had acquired the control and management of the appellant by way of purchasing the latter's majority shares against a Letter of Offer and under the Share Purchase Agreement in terms of the regulations of the securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997, in the month of September 2011 (Takeover procedure began in June 2011). Consequently, as per the acquirer company, the production activities in the appellant's factory at Bilha, Bilaspur had recommenced in the month of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Share Purchase Agreement). In the given circumstances, M/s Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd., during the subject period, was deemed to be 'related' in terms of the Explanation (i) to Section of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by being an "inter-connected undertaking". This is so because after gaining control it had indirect interest in the functioning of the appellant. In view of the above the appellant appeared to be related person of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 3.2 During the period from October 2011 onwards, the value at which sponge iron was sold to M/s Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd. appeared not to be the correct transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, accordingly a show Cause Notice dated 5.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent buyer is only miniscule, as compared to the quantity cleared to BPSL. In such circumstances, no case of any act of omission or commission and/or suppression of facts is made out against the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel prays for relief in penalty imposed. 6. Ld. AR relies on the findings in the impugned order and further relies on the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.6 and 7.4 which reads as follows: "6.6 The case law of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigarh [2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB) cited by the appellant is not squarely applicable in the case in as much as the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that various rules in the Central Excise Valuation Rules to be applied i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 covering the period October 2011 onwards which is well within time limit of 5 years. Therefore, the demand notice is held to be issued within the time limit. Held accordingly. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, we find from the admitted facts on record that the appellant have valued their goods as per their understanding, under Rule 8 which, is applicable in the case of related party or interconnected undertakings. We further find that the demand of differential duty by the Revenue is by way of change of opinion that instead of Rule 8 Rule 4 is applicable, of the Valuation Rules. Thus we hold that there is no suppression of facts and mis-conduct on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
