9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price at which it had sold similar goods to other buyers. Since there was no stock transfer of goods for consumption by the appellant or on its behalf by others in the manufacture of other articles, the situation is not governed under the provisions of Rule 8 ibid and the valuation provisions contained in Section 4 ibid will be applicable for determination of the transaction value for the purpose of charging duty of excise. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - adoption of Rule 8 for determination of value by the appellant can be said to be on entertaining a reasonable doubt, for which extended period of limitation, in our opinion, cannot be invoked. There is no element of mensrea involved in the case - The particulars, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 2004. In response, the appellant, inter alia, contended that it had paid the duty correctly on sales made to its subsidiary unit M/s RAL, as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The matter was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2007, holding that since there is no stock transfer of goods to the sister unit, but sold on purely commercial considerations, the value of the goods for the purpose of charging of duty of excise has to be determined as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provisions of Rule 8 ibid cannot be resorted to for determination of value for payment of duty. On the basis of such findings, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands against the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate has relied on various judgments delivered by the judicial forums. 4. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Grover, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. The Department had confirmed the demand against the appellant on the ground that there was no stock transfer of goods to the sister unit M/s RAL and the goods were sold on purely commercial considerations; thus, the valuation provisions contained in Section 4 (1)(a) ibid will be applicable for determination of the transaction value, as against the claim of appellant for the valuation as provided under Rule 8 ibid. 7. The valuation provisions contained in Rule 8 ibid provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas, the show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2006. From the available records, we find that the appellant had disclosed the sale transaction to the related person and method of determination of assessable value under cost construction method. Further, Shri Ratan Chakravorty in his statement dated 17.09.2002 had also informed the Department regarding the modus operandi adopted by the appellant in supplying the goods to the sister unit M/s. RAL. Furthermore, clarification furnished by the CBEC vide Circular dated 01.07.2002 has also clarified with regard to determination of valuation of goods under different circumstances. Vide the said circular, it has been clarified that in case of sale of goods to related buyers, recourse will have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts by the appellant. It is trite in law that the suppression (intentional and deliberate) can never be said to exist when material and relevant fact forming the basis of the demand were already within the knowledge of the Department. Accordingly, the pre-conditions for applicability of the proviso to Section 11A ibid cannot be said to be existing and in such eventuality, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and the demand to be confined to the normal period of one year. 11. In context with issuance of show cause notice, where there is no involvement of suppression on the part of the assessee, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore vs. Pragathi Concrete Products Ltd. 2015 (322) E.L.T. 819 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessee of the details of its business. In this background, the Department issued a show cause notice to the assessee in 1994 invoking extended period of limitation. The Hon ble Apex Court held that since the requisite information had always been provided to the Department when requested, no case of suppression could be made out against the assessee. Where the Department had inspected and collected necessary information and details from the assessee, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai Vs. Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (216) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) held that the relevant facts were within the knowledge of Departmental Authorities and accordingly the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Further, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
