2005 (2) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Related party transaction
- Assessment of duty on assessable value
- Time limitation for show cause notice
- Penalty imposition under Section 11AC
- Quantification of duty

Related party transaction:
The judgment revolves around a case where the Department contended that a manufacturing firm was selling goods to a related party at prices lower than market rates. The Commissioner held that the related party status was established based on common family ownership, management, and other factors. The Commissioner relied on legal precedents to support the decision. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the related party transaction must be considered, and duty should be assessed based on the price at which the related party sold the goods.

Assessment of duty on assessable value:
The Tribunal confirmed the demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 20,06,016, invoking the larger period of limitation. It was held that the duty should be discharged based on the value at which the related party sold the goods. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's contention regarding the exclusion of certain elements from the duty calculation, as the appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim.

Time limitation for show cause notice:
The appellant argued that the larger period of limitation should not apply as they had been regularly filing required documents. However, the Tribunal found that there was clear suppression of facts by the appellant to evade duty. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the larger period of limitation was applicable in this case due to the established suppression of facts.

Penalty imposition under Section 11AC:
While a composite penalty was imposed, the Tribunal noted that Section 11AC could not have been involved for the period of dispute. The penalty under Rule 173Q was deemed imposable, and it was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh considering the circumstances of the case.

Quantification of duty:
The appellant's plea regarding the incorrect quantification of duty was rejected as they failed to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal also dismissed the argument for permissible deductions in duty calculation based on discrepancies in the price list provided by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the demand for differential duty, reducing the penalty, and setting aside the demand for interest under Section 11AB.