9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ig, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) (for the Bench) (Oral)]. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 99,375/- and equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machines which were being cleared by them to independent wholesale buyers as also to their sister unit. The assessable value adopted for the independent wholesale buyers and in respect of clearance to their sister units was the same. 3. The Revenue entertained a view that in respect of clearance to their s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct with the fact of sale of goods to their sister unit was never disclosed and the costing factor was never placed before the concerned Central Excise authorities which amounts supersession of fact. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. 5. On appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same by observing that the appellants have failed to establish the fact of sales to independent wholesale buyers as held by the Assistant Commissioner, in which case the law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Indus. Ltd. would not apply. He also rejected the appellants plea of limitation. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants, was available as modvat credit to their sister concern and as such it can be safely concluded that entire situation was revenue neutral. If that be so, we are of the view that no mala fide can be attributed to the appellants. The reasoning of the authorities below for invoking the longer period of limitation by observing that the fact of clearance to their sister concern was not disclosed to the Revenue, cannot be appreciated inasmuch as such a clearance were admittedly being effected on the basis of Central Excise invoices. If that be so, we really fail to understand as to how any suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the appellants. Inasmuch as the notice is clearly barred by li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
