9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said rules was erroneous. We also find that the appellant had even admitted some variations in the two types of goods in its reply to the show cause notices itself. In these circumstances, insofar as the opinion of the authorities with regard to different nature of the goods is concerned, that does not call for any interference by this court. Imposition of penalty - Held that:- It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. - Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondent to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act and apply the extended period of limitation. In view thereof, we confirm the demand insofar as it per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the third parties. Such price list in Proforma Part I under Section 4 of the Act was filed on 01.03.1994 and 28.03.1994. It was again filed on 01.03.1998. The price declaration so made was looked into by the Superintendent of Central Excise and he was not satisfied with this declaration as according to him, the price could not be declared at the same rate at which the goods are sold by the appellant at the factory gate to others. According to him, there was a difference between the goods which were cleared at the factory gate to be sold to the third parties and removed for captive consumption by the appellant itself for its Tarapur factory. This resulted in the appointment of a cost accountant by the Commissioner to go into this issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, the goods which were removed for captive consumption to be used by Tarapur Factory were to be valued under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules and the price declaration given by the appellant applying Rule 6(b)(i) of the said rules was erroneous. We also find that the appellant had even admitted some variations in the two types of goods in its reply to the show cause notices itself. In these circumstances, insofar as the opinion of the authorities with regard to different nature of the goods is concerned, that does not call for any interference by this court. Faced with the aforesaid situation, Mr. S. K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has pressed the issue of limitation. His submission is that the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is pointed out that as soon as the second show cause notice was issued and the Revenue wanted the appellant to file price declaration under Rule 6(b)(ii) the appellant complied therewith and with effect from 01.04.2000, i.e., immediately after the issuance of the show cause notice dated 25.02.2000, it is paying duty accordingly and taking credit thereof, as well. This is so accepted by the Department in the second show cause notice dated 3.3.2001 itself. From the aforesaid circumstances narrated by the learned senior counsel, we are inclined to accept the submission of the appellant that there could not have been any mala fides on the part of the appellant in filing the declaration under Rule 6(b)(i) in order to evade the excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
