TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate its claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties at the prevailing market prices, the intention to evade duty payable would arise and an adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. The Tribunal also noticed that no effort was made by the assessee to show the prices charged to the related party or compare such prices to those charged to independent parties. The Tribunal noticed that there was a charge against the assessee that it had deliberately over-valued the goods cleared to related parties in an attempt to obtain a higher refund. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indulged in under-valuation as per its convenience, to short pay the duty amount which has not been rebutted by submitting the prices char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot undertaken by the appellant herein. The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant s computation of its tax liability did not conform to the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. However, notwithstanding the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner s order to the effect that the goods had not been appropriately valued in the transaction with the related party, the Tribunal waived the penalty imposed by the Commissioner without assigning any or appropriate reasons therefor. 4. It is of some significance that the appellant assessee did not question the propriety of the order dated March 22, 2018 and it was only the Department which came up in appeal, restricting the scope of the appeal to that part of the order by which the penalty wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of and the notification has been upheld. Thus, the position now is that even in the North-East a manufacturer cannot claim 100 per cent refund of the excise duty or sales tax component, but the extent of refund is limited to the value addition made to the product in course of the manufacture. 7. It is in such circumstances, as appropriately observed in this Court s order of March 26, 2019, that an element of intent to evade payment of duty may arise. Upon this Court s order of March 26, 2019 setting aside the order dated March 22, 2018 to the extent that it was assailed, such part was directed to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal of November 9, 2021 impugned herein records that the assessee made an attempt to reo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared to related parties in an attempt to obtain a higher refund. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indulged in under-valuation as per its convenience, to short pay the duty amount which has not been rebutted by submitting the prices charged to independent parties. 10. The Tribunal then referred to the notification of March 27, 2008 that had not been placed before the Tribunal in course of the hearing that culminated in the order dated March 22, 2018 and observed that in view of such notification, the assessee herein was not entitled to complete refund. 11. The Tribunal has furnished adequate reasons to justify the perception that the appellant herein had intended to evade payment of duty. The initial order h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
