9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if the discharge of duty liability was at 110%, the Department would have been able to avail the same to that extent. It is seen that the appellants have discharged the entire duty liability in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2015 before the issuance of the same and even the remaining amounts proposed in the three Statements of Demand were paid up proximate to their issue - the short payment on the part of the appellant was not with any intention to evade payment of duty and further, since they were clearing the goods only to their holding company, there is definitely revenue neutrality in the entire transaction. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos.: E/40822, 40823, 40824 & 40825/2017 - Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od and paid up the differential duty of around ₹ 5,25,85,400/-. 2.3 Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2015 was issued to the appellant proposing demand and appropriation of the said duty liability of ₹ 5,25,85,400/- with interest as also imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Statements of Demand dated 29.01.2016, 29.04.2016 and 08.07.2016 were also issued inter alia proposing demand of differential duty liabilities of ₹ 4,40,598/-, ₹ 3,66,901/- and ₹ 3,18,262/- respectively. In adjudication, the Commissioner vide impugned Order dated 30.01.2017 confirmed the demands as proposed in the Show Cause Notice/Statements of Demand with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (119) E.L.T. 718; M/s. Nirlon Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai 2015 (5) T.M.I. 101 (S.C.); C.C.E., Chennai-IV Vs. M/s. Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (323) E.L.T. 299 (Mad.). 4.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri. B. Balamurugan appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned Order. He submits that only after being pointed out by the Department and appointment of the independent Cost Accountant have the appellants agreed to pay up the differential duty liability. Further, the appellants had not informed of the requirement of the following CAS-4 valuation pursuant to their audit in July, 2013. 4.2 He also submits that the plea of revenue neutrality will not help the case of the appellant. Ld. AR submits that the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and even the remaining amounts proposed in the three Statements of Demand were paid up proximate to their issue. 7. We find that this very Bench in the case of M/s. Anglo French Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry 2018 (360) E.L.T. 1016 (Tri. Chennai) where the facts were identical, has held as under : 5. On considering the fact that the goods are cleared to the sister unit and also the fact that the appellant is eligible for credit on the duty paid, the entire exercise is a revenue neutral situation as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
