9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, submitted that M/s. Vardhman Special Steel is a unit of Mahavir Spinning Mills; that the Appellants at their Ludhiana unit manufacture billets and rolled products; that some quantity of billets manufactured by them are being sent to other unit No. II at Faridabad; that the demand has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed on the ground that the billets were sent to the unit No. II at a price less than the price at which these were sold to the outsider at factory gate; that the factory gate sale cannot be compared with the stock transfer or supply by one unit to the another unit of the same assessee because no sale is involved; that difference between the factory gate selling price and the stock transfer would necessarily take into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit are to be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. He also mentioned that in appeal No. E/2675/2004-NBA the show cause notice was issued on 2-5-2001 for demanding duty for the period 1-4-2000 to 30-6-2000 and as such the entire demand of duty is within the time limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act; that the demand in appeal No. E/2521/2004 is also not hit by time limit as the extended period of limitation is invokable as they had nowhere declared that they were charging lower price from their own unit. 4.We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Appellants that the factory gate price of the impugned goods is available in the present matters. Under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, the question of application of Section 4(1)(b) does not arise. As in the present matters also, the normal price at factory gate is available, the goods removed to their unit No. II will be assessed to duty on the basis of normal value. Undisputedly the demand of duty covered in appeal No. 2675/2004-A is within the time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, and therefore, we uphold the demand and penalty and reject appeal No. E/2675/2004-A. As far as the second appeal No. E/2521/2004 is concerned we observe that the lower authorities have not considered the submission of the Appellants that they had filed the price declaration regarding transfer of the goods to their other unit. This aspect of invocabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
