2018 (12) TMI 715 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Valuation – related party transaction – removal to sister units – Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules – time limitation – Held that:- The facts of the present case are covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yushin Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi [2000 (7) TMI 105 – CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI], where it was held that there is no dispute that clearance of excisable goods on short payment of duty had taken place. The fact that the differential duty was subsequently debited (albeit voluntarily) by the assessee before the issue of SCN will not debar the issuance of SCN in relation to the short payment occurring on the relevant date.
–
The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed on limitation. – Appeal No. E/76291/2018 – FO/76535/2018 – Dated:- 17-8-2018 – Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that the entire dispute is on the removal to sister units following the valuation of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The sale is not to unrelated buyer and hence the situation of revenue neutral is applicable to the facts of the present case. Ld. Consultant further submits that since the appellants have been filing RT-12 Returns on a regular basis, and if the department did not agree to their valuation, they could have issued the show cause notice in time. In this case the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period alleging suppression of facts. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sundram Fasteners Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Cus. & C.Ex, Hyderabad-I [2009(237) ELT 55(Tri.-Bang.)]. 3. Ld. D.R. reiterates the orders of the lower authorities and submits that in various decisions, on the aspect of revenue neutrality, it has been held that the demand and interest cannot be waived. 4. Heard both sides and peru
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ave been filing the RT-12 returns regularly. If the department had not agreed with their valuation, they could have issued the show cause notice in time. In this case, the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period alleging suppression of facts. On this ground alone, the entire demand is liable to be set aside. Moreover, we also find great merit in the contention of the appellant that in any inter-unit transfer, there is revenue neutrality and there cannot be any intention to evade duty. All the relied on case laws are applicable to the present case. Even in respect of two products wherein three invoices have been relied, they are only stray cases. In view of the above, we do not find merit in the impugned order. Therefore, we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief. 6. In view of the above discussions the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed on limitation. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =