2013 (8) TMI 1022 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest and penalty - revenue neutrality - improper Valuation - appellant has paid the duty liability on being pointed out - Held that - The contention raised by the appellant as to revenue neutrality has got strong force inasmuch as there is no dispute that clearance of resins was to their own sister unit. There cannot be any intention to evade duty on such clearance made to their own sister concern, as the said sister concerns admittedly are discharging the duty liability on the final products manufactured by them; which would mean that the sister concerns could have availed the Cenvat credit of any duty paid by the appellant on clearance of resins to them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Out-of-turn hearing of appeal.
2. Valuation of goods cleared to own sister units.
3. Revenue neutrality and intention to evade duty.
4. Interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Misc. Application was filed for out-of-turn hearing of Appeal No. 50/2009(Ahd-I)CE/ID/Commr(A)/Ahd, dated 5-3-2009. The issue was whether to allow the out-of-turn hearing, which was granted due to the narrow compass of the case, leading to the appeal being taken up for disposal immediately.

2. The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of resins, clearing goods to their sister units at various locations, leading to a dispute regarding the valuation under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellant paid the duty liability after an audit revealed erroneous valuation, and the Revenue authorities issued a show cause notice for differential duty, interest, and penalties. The appeal process upheld the original order, leading to the current appeal.

3. The appellant argued for revenue neutrality, claiming that since the goods were cleared to their own sister units, there was no intention to evade duty as the sister units could avail Cenvat credit. The High Court decisions cited supported the appellant's stance on revenue neutrality and lack of intention to evade duty, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order based on the precedent.

4. The interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was crucial in determining whether there was intentional evasion of duty. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the appellant's voluntary disclosure of clearances without duty payment, indicating an honest conduct and lack of intent to evade duty, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal based on the principles of revenue neutrality and absence of mala fide intentions.

Overall, the judgment focused on the valuation of goods cleared to own sister units, the concept of revenue neutrality, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions to determine the duty liability and penalties in the context of the appellant's case.