9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/53037/2015-DB - A/53532/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 28-6-2018 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S.K. Bansal, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: 1. The issue in this Appeal is, under the admitted fact that the appellant have cleared goods to their own units, in such situation whether the transaction value is to be arrived at for the purpose of levy of duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. The second issue is whether under the facts and circumstances the extended period of limitation have been rightly invoked for issuing the show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the appellant that intermediate goods are cleared to their own units and not to any outsiders by adding 10% to the cost of production of the said goods, as required under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, to the other two units of the appellant and the duty so paid is availed as Cenvat Credit by those units and used for payment of Excise Duty on clearance of dutiable goods. It appeared to Revenue that the invoices so raised do not show separately cost of production and value arrived at under 110% of cost of production. Appellant also submitted the CA Certificate, copy of which is filed in the Appeal paper book, which were obtained whenever price of copper has been varied substantially. Fresh CA certificate was obtained for the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and documented in the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest vide the Order-in-Original dated 7th May, 2014 by the Additional Commissioner who was pleased to confirm demand in part at ₹ 10,43,998/- and dropped the balance proposed demand of ₹ 19,20,844/- as not sustainable. Further interest was demanded and penalty of ₹ 10,433,998 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Act, no penalty was imposed under Rule 25 of the CER of 2002 as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 6. Accordingly the Ld. Advocate prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 7. The Ld. AR for Revenue relied on the impugned Order-in-Appeal wherein Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
