CGST & CX, Howrah Versus M/s. NALCO Water India Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 312 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 21-3-2018
E/75327/18 – FO/75450/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue
Shri Amitabha Lahiri, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of water treatment chemicals and processed chemicals classifiable under Chapter 28, 34, 38 & 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is the case of the Revenue that the respondent assessee were found to have assessed their different finished product manufactured at their Konnagar unit at a price lower than that ought to have been determined in terms of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. While taking stock transfer of the said goods to their another unit (a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
20/12/2016
Paid full duty and interest on 25/02/2014
And
01/03/2014 i.e. Before issue of SCN – but not Penalty
OIA no 285- HWH-CE- 2017-18 dt 16/11/17 dropping penalty. Now under challenge by Department
4. Ld.Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)] and ECE Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.)].
5. Para 6.1 of the impugned order is reproduced for appreciation of the facts:-
“6.1 From the facts brought in the impugned order, I find it is undisputed that on detection by the Department the appellant had paid the entire amount of differential duty along with interest well before the issuance of show cause notice with intimation to the Department and which has also been appropriated by the original adjudicating authority. Regarding the aspect of allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
close of the accounting year may finally be found to be either higher or lower in comparison to the costs on the basis of which duties were paid at the time of their removal/stock transfers. Thus they contended that under the above facts the allegations of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is not sustainable. I find the instant demand is a fall out of audit observation on the basis of scrutiny of the records maintained by the appellant. I also find that all the records pertaining to the alleged irregularity had been readily submitted by the appellant before the Audit officers as well as concern Range Officer and on verification of such records they had detected the irregularity. I find after the detection of such irregularity the respondent acted promptly and intimated the Department that they were arranging to get CAS-4 Certificate and agreed to pay the differential duty if payable together with interest. After procuring the CAS-4 Certificate they immediately pai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =