9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discount given by the appellants to M/s. Rasta (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. RIL) is very high and also conditional and hence the same would not be allowed. Invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, he confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 27,45,835/- on the appellants. He imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest under Section 11AB was also demanded. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant strongly challenge the impugned order. 3.Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Smt. Shobha L. Chary, learned JCDR appeared for the Revenue. 4.The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 1388] (c) CCE Meerut v. Shri Ram Piston Rings Ltd. [1999 (107) E.L.T. 380] (d) Ind-Sphinx Precision Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [1994 (74) E.L.T. 683] (5) The price on which the tips had been sold by the appellants to M/s. RIL is in line with the price prevailing in the market. The appellants have submitted evidence to indicate that the other manufacturers also offer the tips at similar prices. Once the price is in line with the market price, the genuineness of the price cannot be doubted. The following case laws were relied on :- (a) A.K.G. Acoustics (India) Ltd., Anr. v. CCE, Allahabad [2000 (125) E.L.T. 713 (T) = 1999 (34) RLT 717] (b) Oscar Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Ors. v. CCE, New Delhi [2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire exercise appears to be revenue neutral. Moreover the appellants would not have had any intention to evade payment of duty of a small amount of Rs. 5 lakhs per year when compared to their annual duty payment of Rs. 20 - 40 crores per year. In view of the above, the learned Advocate submitted that there is no suppression, fraud, collusion, etc. and therefore, the longer period cannot be invoked. The following case laws were relied on :- (a) Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)] (b) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., v. CCE [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] In view of the above, penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is purely on commercial grounds. It has also been demonstrated that the other manufacturers also give similar discount to tool makers. In other words, the price at which the tips were offered to M/s. RIL was favourable with the price charged by the other manufacturers of the tips. There is no finding by the Revenue that there is some flow back from M/s. RIL to the appellants. Even if the higher discount is disallowed, the duty paid by the appellants would be taken as Cenvat by M/s. RIL. Thus the entire exercise appears to be revenue neutral. There is no justification for invoking the longer period as there is no suppression of facts. The appellants have not suppressed the price at which the goods have been sold to their customers. The case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
