Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (11) TMI 1692 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Assessment of duty under Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2002
- Demand of interest and imposition of penalty
- Interpretation of inter-unit transfer of goods
- Applicability of previous judicial decisions on interest liability

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs, who transferred their final product to a sister unit on payment of duty under Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2002. Subsequently, a lower assessable value was noticed, leading to the voluntary payment of differential duty by the appellant. A show cause notice (SCN) was issued proposing a demand of interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the original authority to re-quantify the interest demand and set aside the penalty in the impugned order.

Regarding the interpretation of inter-unit transfer of goods, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and held that interest liability did not arise in this case due to the absence of a dispute regarding cenvat credit by the sister unit and the payment of differential duty by the assessee before the issuance of the SCN. It was noted that there was no malafide intention attached to the under-valuation. The Tribunal found the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court applicable to the present case.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The operative part of the decision was pronounced in open court, bringing an end to the dispute over the demand of interest and penalty in the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates