9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he short payment of another period? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal Ahmedabad in case of M/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-VADODARA-I [ 2015 (10) TMI 1242 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that in a case of inter-unit transfer of goods by the appellant s own company and that where the appellant had paid excess duty as well as some short payment of duty amount of CAS-4 since there was no sale of goods involved the adjustment of excess against the short payment is permissible. Decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [ 2004 (7) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] was followed. In the appellant s own case in the appeals as mentioned by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants have not determined the duty payable on the said goods adopting valuation at the rate of 110% of the cost of production of said 3x3 ply HTS given to their sister concern. Accordingly, vide show cause notice no. 973 dated 03 October, 2017 an amount of ₹ 1,84,210/- alleged to be a short paid amount of duty for the period of October 2015 to June, 2017 was proposed to be recovered along with the appropriate interest and the proportionate penalties the said proposal was initially confirmed by Order-in-Original No. 06/2017-CE dated 25.01.2018. The appeal thereof has been rejected by the order under challenge. 2. We have heard Shri Ram Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, Authorised Representative fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. To rebutt the submissions, learned Authorised Representative laid emphasis on the order under challenge. It is mentioned that Commissioner (Appeal) has reasonably discussed the non-compliance of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 due to which the plea of the appellant s have rightly been rejected Order is, accordingly, prayed to be upheld and appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and pursuing the records and observed we hold as follows: (i) The appellants have been clearing HTS wire to their sister concern for pressed concrete slippers by the said sister concern. Department has been of the opinion that in the given scenario the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability, excess or shortage has also to be determined on such basis. It is not tenable while for arriving at per unit duty liability the whole year data is considered for costing, for total duty liability only months when short payment was noticed were considered. In other words when CAS-4 based annual costing formed basis for arriving transaction value, the overall duty liability/short payment should be arrived at after considering duty already paid during that year on such goods. We find the reasoning given by the Original Authority against adjustment of already paid duty as untenable. Section 11B has no application in such situation, when the appellants duty liability is determined on annual CAS-4, the duty already paid during said perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
