9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch goods in retail - there are force in the contention of the appellant that this provision can have no application to the instant case. It is not a case herein of valuation of goods sold to or through TML, assuming as held in the impugned order that it is a subsidiary company of the appellant and therefore a related person within the meaning of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. The goods whose valuation is the subject matter in the instant case are the goods which are transferred for captive consumption to the appellant s factory at Jamshedpur - In the instant case the facts on record, as stated in both the show cause notices and the impugned order, establishes that such is not the case. Hence the condition precedent for applicability of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69/CCE/CEX/ RKL/2017-18 dated March 30, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST CX, Rourkela, confirming a total duty demand of ₹ 128,84,03,023/- against the appellant under Section 11A(1)/11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB/11AA of the Act. Penalty of ₹ 128,84,03,023/- under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has also been imposed upon the appellant. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, at its own iron ore mines, inter alia, at Joda in the district of Keonjhar in the State of Odisha. Iron ore extracted from the said mines is converted into iron ore concentrates and most of them are cleared to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of production. By the impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed the allegations contained in the show cause notices and the duty demands contained therein, along with interest and by imposing equivalent amount of penalty upon the appellant. Being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant as under: (a) The impugned order is contrary to the Department s own stand on the issue involved, which is recorded in the order itself by the Commissioner. No reason or basis has been disclosed as to why the Commissioner was deviating from the said firm stand of the Department, set out in para 5.4 of the impugned order itself, which supports the appellant s contention as reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 covered thereby is barred by limitation, the show cause notice having been issued beyond the prescribed period of one year contained in Section 11A(1) of the Act. In the undisputed facts on record of the instant case, the extended period of limitation contained in the Proviso to Section 11A(1)/11A(4) of the Act has or can have no manner of application. The appellant, as detailed in the replies to the show cause notices, had been duly filing its RT-3 returns with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities during the said period disclosing therein the clearance of the said goods at the values/prices contained therein, to the steelworks at Jamshedpur and TML respectively. As acknowledged by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We have heard Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Abhijit Biswas, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K. Chowdhary, A.R. for the Revenue and have perused the records of the instant appeals. 7. We find that as a part of the replies to the show cause notice the appellant had annexed its letter dated October 25, 2007 under which the Cost Audit Report for the period 2006-07 was submitted to the Senior Audit Officer, CRA-3 Bhubaneswar, the endorsement on which confirmed due receipt thereof. We also find that the Department s own stand, set out in para 5.4 of the impugned order, that the cost of production of iron ore concentrate, prepared and signed by a Cost Accountant on 05.07.2007 arrived at on 110% basis as per CAS-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices and the impugned order, establishes that such is not the case. Hence the condition precedent for applicability of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules has not been satisfied. 9. We also are in agreement with the appellant s contention that Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules also, even on the finding of the Commissioner that TML is a subsidiary company of the appellant, is inapplicable in the instant case. The said provision is applicable only in cases where the assessee so arranges that excisable goods are not sold by him except to or through an inter-connected undertaking. The facts on record explicitly demonstrating that such is not the case herein, Rule 10, and, consequently, Rule 9 cannot have any application. 10. We therefore are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
