9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench) : Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner vide which he has dropped the demand against the respondents, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plain BOPP film which are sold by them to the independent buyers as also to their sister concern M/s. Max Foil Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e varying in size and held that the reduced value was acceptable. He accordingly dropped the proceedings. We also note that the plea of limitation and Revenue neutrality was raised before Commissioner, but he has not passed the order on the same on the ground that inasmuch as the demand was being dropped on merits, the decision on the said two issues would only be academic. 3. Learned DR appearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the declaration under Rule 173 C of Central Excise Rules, disclosing the fact that clearance to their sister concern are on the basis of cost of production, in terms of provisions of Rule 6 (b)(ii) of the Erstwhile Central Excise Valuation Rules. 5. However, we note that notice proposed to invoke the longer period of limitation on the simplicitor ground that appellant has nowhere disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents, was available as credit to their sister unit and the said credit was being utilized by their sister unit for payment of duty on their final product. As such, the entire situation was revenue neutral. We take note of various decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent laying down that in case of revenue neutrality, no malafide can be attributed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear [2009 (247) ELT 374 (Tri)] 4. Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai [2009 (235) ELT 105 (Tri)] 5. Daman Ganga Board Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CCE Daman [2012(276) ELT 532 (Tri)] 9. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that demand is barred by limitation and is also not sustainable on the point of revenue-neutrality. As such, without going into the detailed merits of the case, we rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
