9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1985. It was noticed that the Appellants manufactured Ethyl Alcohol, which was used in captive consumption by their other unit viz. M/s. Somaiya Organics (I) Ltd., Barabanki. It was also noticed that the Appellants paid the duty on captive consumption at a lower price compared to the same goods manufactured by the other units. The Appellant paid the differential duty of Rs. 8,64,701/- vide Entry Nos. 2256 and 2257, both dated 27-7-2001 for the period 15th April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. A show cause notice dated 18-7-2005 was issued proposing the demand of interest of Rs. 4,57,984/- for contravention of Rules 6(B)(1) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and penalty for contravention of the said Rules. The Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on perusal of the records, it is revealed from the show cause notice that the Appellant removed Ethyl Alcohol captivity consumed by the other unit, M/s. Somaiya Organics (I) Ltd., Barabanki. As per new Valuation Rules, effective from 1-7-2000, they are liable to pay the duty on the valuation at 115% of the cost of production. It is seen that during the period 15th April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, they paid the duty on captive consumption under the new Valuation Rules. On scrutiny of the cost of the final products, it was found that they did not add the cost of denaturants and the assessable value was ascertained to Rs. 14.72 per litre instead of Rs. 14.50 per litre as added by the Appellant. They have immediately paid the differential duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be justified merely because the evaded excise duty is paid before issuance of show cause notice by the department? 6. In the present case, it has been discussed that there is no evasion of duty. The Adjudicating Authority also refrained from imposition of penalty, which was not challenged by the Revenue before the Appellate Authority. Thus, the said decision is not applicable herein. The Tribunal in the case of Ruby Mills Ltd. (supra) set aside the recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Act in respect of demand of interest for ineligibility of Cenvat/Modvat Credit for the period prior to 11-5-2001 i.e. on the date when Finance Bill, 2001 was given assent by President. In the present case, the period of dispute is 15th April, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
