9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the said aluminium sheets so transferred by the appellants to their sister unit during the period 24-5-99 to 25-5-2000. Prior to the said period, the appellants were declaring the value of the sheets on the basis of comparable goods of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (for short INDAL). The Revenue noticed that the price of the sheets was revised by M/s. INDAL with effect from 24-5-99 and again from 10-3-2000. However, there was no revision of the value by the appellants during the said period who continued clearing the sheets at the old rates, so declared by them. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the appellants proposing to confirm demand of duty of Rs. 66,89,789/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred eighty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal-LB) wherein it has been held that with particular reference to Modvat scheme, it has to be shown that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods. He submits that inasmuch as the Modvat credit was available to the appellants himself (his sister unit), the Revenue neutral situation was applicable in view of the Larger Bench decision. For the similar reason, he submits that no penalty is liable to be imposed upon the appellants. 3. Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR appearing of the Revenue, supports the impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The appellants' contention that they were not aware of the price hike by M/s. INDAL cannot be accepted inasmuch as the appellant was duty bound to ascertain whether there was a change in the value of the comparable goods manufactured by M/s. INDAL. They were very well aware of the legal position that in case of transfer of the goods to their sister concern, value has to be adopted on the basis of value of comparable goods being manufactured by the other manufacturer similarly situate. They were also aware that the goods manufactured by M/s. INDAL are comparable goods and that is why prior to the period in question they were adopting their value. As such, we do not find any jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
