9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to each clearance to the related buyer and the transaction of unrelated buyer used for comparison is available - the SCN is vague inasmuch as the basis for alleging the undervaluation and calculating the extent of differential duty payable are not clear. Validity of subsequent SCN - Held that:- There is nothing on record to show as to why a highest transaction value should form the basis for clearances to related parties. Thus, in both cases, the show cause notices do not indicate as to how the differential duty was worked out, invoice wise and which invoice value was used for comparison. There is a gap of 6 months between the two invoices. Further, the annexure to this show cause notice which gives the breakup of the differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the clearances by the appellant to various buyers, it was found by the department that they had cleared goods to their sister concerns which are related parties in terms of Sec.4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at transaction values which are lower than the prices on which goods were sold to independent buyers. A show cause notice dated 06.10.2009 was issued by the department relying on the invoices issued by the appellant during 2004-05 to 2008-09, assessee s letters, their annual reports etc., proposing to reject the transaction values in respect of such clearances and determine the value of steel ingots so cleared under Rule 4 Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 read with Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the demand on the following grounds. a) The rejection of transaction value on the basis that they are interconnected undertakings is incorrect. Since without flow back, directly or indirectly, transaction value cannot be rejected. b) The demand is barred by limitation as all facts were known to the department from the beginning. c) The demand of differential duty based on the report of the range officer received at the back of the assessee is incorrect and therefore the demands may be set aside and the appeals may be allowed. They pray that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Learned departmental representative reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paid with respect to each clearance to the related buyer and the transaction of unrelated buyer used for comparison is available. Further, we find that even if we juxtapose the different extents of undervaluation indicated in the table in Para 8 with the demands in the annexure to the show cause notice, there is no match. We, therefore, find that this show cause notice is vague inasmuch as the basis for alleging the undervaluation and calculating the extent of differential duty payable are not clear. 7. Insofar as the subsequent show cause notice dated 27.04.2010 is concerned, an illustration of the extent of undervaluation is given in Para 8 with respect to clearance made vide invoice No.24 on 11.05.2009 to a related buyer viz., M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
