TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantiate their claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties on prevailing market prices. Moreover, in the adjudication proceedings, they have not disputed that manner of computation adopted by the Central Excise Department to arrive at the value as per the Rules, as appearing in page No. 26 to 40 of the appeal Paper Book which forms part of the SCN. No effort was ever made to show that the prices charged to the related party were closely approximate to the prices charged to independent parties. Further, there is a charge against the assessee that they deliberately over-valued the goods cleared to related parties in attempt to obtain higher refund which is the subject matter of recovery in the impugned demand order. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said SCN was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Shillong, vide Order dated 28.02.2014 whereby the duty amount alongwith interest was confirmed and penalty imposed for not valuing the final products under Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, i.e. cost plus 10%, as was relevant during the material period. 2.1 In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal vide final order No. 75602/2018 dated 22.03.2018 upheld the duty demand by holding that the appellant assessee did not comply with the requirement of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal, however, held that no penalty was imposable inasmuch as the appellant would be entitled to refund of the duty discharged by them in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble, the question of intention to evade payment of duty pales into insignificance. But where the duty charged is not 100% refundable, then any act of concealment, misstatement or suppression of facts will give rise to the intention to evade payment of duty. 8. Learned CESTAT has not looked into the above circumstances, more particularly, notification dated 27-3-2008 and in the same context, it appears that CESTAT has opined that the respondent were entitled to get refund of the tax discharged by them, as a result whereof, imposition of penalty has been set aside. 9. When Learned Counsel for the respondent was confronted with the said position, he did not oppose remand of the case for fresh consideration by CESTAT rightly so becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Hon ble High Court. 6. On perusal of the case records, we find that the assessee has not valued the goods in compliance with the Valuation Rules. The appellant has contended that they have cleared the goods on the basis of prevailing market prices. However, no evidence has been produced to substantiate their claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties on prevailing market prices. Moreover, in the adjudication proceedings, they have not disputed that manner of computation adopted by the Central Excise Department to arrive at the value as per the Rules, as appearing in page No. 26 to 40 of the appeal Paper Book which forms part of the SCN. No effort was ever made to show that the prices charged to the related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
