9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances the extended period of limitation have been rightly invoked for issuing the show cause notice. 2. M/s KEI Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) (hereinafter called Appellant) are manufacturer of Power Cable. It has been alleged that the appellant cleared "Copper Wire" to their own units located at Delhi, Silvasa and Chopanki. Further alleged, appellant paid Excise Duty on "assessable Value" only and not on value determined at 110% under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rule, 2000, for the goods to their own units. 3. Mr. Hashmi, DGM(Excise), in his statement recorded, stated the co. have shown the price of goods at 110% of cost of production, based on the cost accountant certificate. It was informed vide letter dated 19.4.2012 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f copper has been varied substantially. Fresh CA certificate was obtained for the valuation purpose of the cost of production and duty was paid accordingly. As per the appellant, in some instances they have paid excess excise duty during the period under dispute. It is further alleged that since the invoices did not make specific declaration of 110% cost of production and therefore it was presumed that the goods were undervalued. The value declared in the invoices was taken as the cost of production and further 10% was added and accordingly the demand for differential duty was raised in Show Cause Notice dated 4th May, 2012 for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 invoking the extended period of limitation. Further it was urged that appellant pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue relied on the impugned Order-in-Appeal wherein Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the Order-in-Original. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the facts on record we find that there is no element of any suppression of facts nor there is any contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant-assessee. Further we observe that the issue is wholly Revenue neutral, as whatever additional duty appellant would have paid, as demanded by Revenue, the same was available as Cenvat Credit to the sister units, which cleared output on payment of duty. Accordingly we hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue and thus the show cause notice is not maintainable. Accordingly, we allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
