9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. E/52110/2018-DB - Final Order No. 53408/2018 - Dated:- 28-11-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Kishor K. Acharya, Advocate, Shri S.N. Panda, Advocate for the appellant Shri H. Saini, D.R. for the respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant have been rightly visited with penalty of ₹ 27,20,449/- which is 50% of the demand confirmed under erstwhile Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Act whether the same is maintainable. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant company is a manufacturer of sponge iron. The appellant had reportedly due to financial losses, stopped its production activity during the period from Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Power Steel Ltd. at prices in the range of ₹ 19,000/- to ₹ 20000/- PMT whereas identical goods had been sold to other independent buyers like M/s Mangel Sponge Steel (P) Ltd., Bilaspur @ ₹ 21,300/- PMT. 3.1 Since M/s Bhushan Power Steel Ltd., had purchased the majority shares of the Noticee as per the SEBI Regulations 1997, and since the acquired shares had a lock in period until 27.6.2013 as per para 5.2(iv) of the Share Purchase Agreement imposed by the National Stock Exchange, the acquirer i.e. M/s Bhushan Power Steel Ltd. gained control and management over the appellant (para 6.1.2 of the Share Purchase Agreement). In the given circumstances, M/s Bhushan Steel Power Ltd., during the subject period, was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice, there is proposal to appropriate the amount of ₹ 53,63,268/- already paid towards proposed demand of ₹ 54,40,898/-. 5. The ld. Counsel for the appellant assailing the order-in-appeal confirming the demand and penalty, states that the whole dispute relates to only change of opinion on the part of the Revenue. As interconnected undertaking they have rightly valued their clearances under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. He further points out that there is a difference of approximately 5% only in the value of clearance to BPSL as compared to other independent buyers. Further, the quantity cleared to the other independent buyer is only miniscule, as compared to the quantity cleared to BPSL. In such circumstances, no c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation where sale is made to a related person and partly to unrelated person, then in respect of valuation of goods sold to related buyers, valuation will have to be under Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules read with Rule 9 or Rule 10 of Valuation Rules. 7.4 It is on record that the fact of selling of the factory to M/s Bhushan Power Steel Ltd. was never disclosed to the department before the investigation of the case and also invoice wise details evidencing the value at which the impugned goods were sold to their related buyer were not disclosed to the department. In the instant case, SCN invoking the extended period was issued on 5.2.2016 covering the period October 2011 onwards which is well within time limit of 5 years. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
