Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 731 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURTValuation - intent to evade payment of duty - whether the goods sold to a related party or a sister concern should have been computed on cost of production basis which was not undertaken by the appellant herein? - Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- In discussing the aspect of “intent to evade”, as used in Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Act of 1944, the Tribunal found that once it was established that the assessee had not valued the goods in accordance with the said Rules of 2000 and when the assessee produced no evidence to substantiate 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 charged to independent parties.” The Tribunal has furnished adequate reasons to justify the perception that the appellant herein had intended to evade payment of duty. The initial order had merely waived the penalty without indicating any reason. Since appropriate reasons relevant to the issue have been indicated in the order impugned upon due considerations being taken into account, the order in appeal does not call for any interference. Appeal dismissed.
|