TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee to that extent. We fail to understand that when the Assessee had changed its method of valuation on the advice of the Department's Authority himself based on some Audit objection as indicated in the communication dated 17.1.2008, how by turning the tables on the Assessee, the Adjudicating Authority, without referring to the said communication dated 17.1.2008, could invoke the extended period of limitation and hold that the Assessee is guilty of suppression of relevant facts viz., the Steel Bars were supplied to their Sister Concerns for the construction work and not for further manufacture of excisable goods, and thereby impose the duty following the Rule 4 Valuation and not Rule 8 Valuation as advised by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz., 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 by the show cause notice issued on 19.8.2010 as Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which permits only one year prior to the issuance of show cause notice to be covered by it, there is a case of suppression of facts made out against the Assessee and therefore, the extended period of limitation of 5 years cannot be applied. 3. The relevant para viz., 13.2 to 14.3 of the Tribunal's order dated 29.4.2019 are quoted below for ready reference:- 13.2. The period that has been sought to be covered in these proceedings is from 2007-08 to 2009-10. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 19.08.2010. The CERA Audit had been conducted in October 2007, based on which the Department had vide letter dated 17.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. So ordered. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, reiterating the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, urged that the Assessee did not disclose the facts to the Department that the goods in question were transferred by them to their Sister Concerns for captive construction and not for manufacture of further excisable goods and therefore, in the absence of such a disclosure, the Assessee was guilty of suppression of material facts in this regard and therefore, the extended period of limitation can be invoked by the Adjudicating Authority in the present case. She, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the Appeal filed by the Assessee and holding that the Adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 viz., as per CAS 4 valuation method viz., 10% over and above the cost or in other words at the rate of 110% of the transferred cost, as against the transactional value with unrelated parties of the transferred goods under Rule 4 of the Rules. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessee changed its valuation method to CAS 4 on the advice of the Department itself under the said communication dated 17.1.2008 subsequently, and therefore, by issuance of show cause notice dated 19.8.2010, the Additional Director General of Central Excise could not have levelled allegation against the Assessee that the Assessee had suppressed the relevant facts in this regard and therefore the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue to be invoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 2007. Therefore, the valuation of re-rollable products (chapter heading 72) to Jindal Steel works should be valued based on CAS 4 value of the standard prescribed by the Institute Cost Works Accounts of India vide Board circular cited. During the year 2005-06 and 2006-07, you have transferred Bars Rods for self consumption for use in the construction work as payment of duty. The value of goods so consumed by you and also transferred to this associated company, should be strictly based on CAS 4 valuation and duty paid accordingly. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Assessee further submitted that though the said communication is very much available in the record of the Revenue and subsequently submitted through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethod of valuation on the advice of the Department's Authority himself based on some Audit objection as indicated in the communication dated 17.1.2008, how by turning the tables on the Assessee, the Adjudicating Authority, without referring to the said communication dated 17.1.2008, could invoke the extended period of limitation and hold that the Assessee is guilty of suppression of relevant facts viz., the Steel Bars were supplied to their Sister Concerns for the construction work and not for further manufacture of excisable goods, and thereby impose the duty following the Rule 4 Valuation and not Rule 8 Valuation as advised by the Department's Authority itself, while the Assessee had followed the said advice/suggestion of the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
