9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st computation , in the manner determined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in UJAGAR PRINTS, ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] , does not preclude scrutiny of assessing authorities. The charge in the show cause notice is that additional consideration , as received by the job-worker , from the principal having paid the cost of transportation and other charges that, otherwise, would, ordinarily, have not been. No evidence has been placed on record to counter this allegation. Furthermore, no evidence has been adduced to suggest that the allegation of pricing as being below that of procurement cost was incorrect. Consequently, the costs involved in the transaction between the job-worker and principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [order-in-original no.17/CEX/COMMR/2012 dated 17th October 2012 ] of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Aurangabad had, on the finding that duty liability to be discharged by the job-worker had been computed without including certain costs and expenditure pertaining to supplies by the principal manufacturer, confirmed duty liability of ₹ 65,57,238 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, for the period from April 1996 to December 2000 besides imposing penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on M/s Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, in addition to penalties under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on other appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r end. It was also contended that the adjudicating authority had erred in proceeding on assumptions and presumptions without valid authority of law. 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd and Shri Ranjit Gupta dispute the correctness of imposition of penalty under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that it is on record that M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd had billed the job-worker at less than or at same rate as charged by their suppliers; this, he pointed out, was tantamount to additional consideration liable to be included in assessable value. It was also contended by him that, in the absence of voluntary disclosure from both parties, it was open to the central excise author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints etc. v. Union of India [1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC)], does not preclude scrutiny of assessing authorities. The charge in the show cause notice is that additional consideration , as received by the job-worker , from the principal having paid the cost of transportation and other charges that, otherwise, would, ordinarily, have not been. No evidence has been placed on record to counter this allegation. Furthermore, no evidence has been adduced to suggest that the allegation of pricing as being below that of procurement cost was incorrect. Consequently, the costs involved in the transaction between the job-worker and principal require addition to the declared value. 8. That the procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed RT-12 returns cannot establish knowledge on the part of the department. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the M/s. AEL is not relevant as the facts in this case are different. The M/s. AEL has given a declaration on the invoices that the particulars given thereunder are true and there is no direct or indirect additional consideration. Whereas in this case the prices declared were not true. The M/s. AEL had willfully suppressed the facts with intent to evade duty and as such proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central excise Act, 1944 is rightly applicable in this case for recovery of duty for extended period. I hold that the Hon'ble CESTAT in a Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Jay Yuhshin Ltd. V/s. CCE reported as 2000(11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove that he was in any way connected with the undervaluation of inputs, cleared by M/s. Bajaj to M/s AEL. that he was not concerned with the excisable goods and he did not know or had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation when the issue involved is regarding valuation and hence Rule 209 A can not be invoked to impose penalty on him. I find, the contentions of Mr.Anil R Mali not sustainable as it has already been established in forgoing paras that there is a dear case of undervaluation with intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty and he played a very active role in this undervaluation. find that Shri Ranjit Gupta, Vice President of M/s. Bajaj, and Shri Anil R. Mali, then Chief Executive Officer of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
