9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN Date Amount involved in SCN (in Rs) O-in-O date Amount confirmed in O-in-O ( in Rs) Order-in- Appeal Date 1 E/75321/2014 21-05-2009 23392802 29.11.2013 10947930 NA 2 E/76136/2016 28.07.2014 12675539 26.02.2016 5055327 NA 02.12.2015 529885 3 E/78241/2018 27.11.2013 1402194 14.03.2017 1402194 14.05.2018 4 E/79574/2018 20.02.2013 3092000 04.06.2014 2921779 22.05.2018 5 E/75713/2019 27.11.2013 2192490 28.02.2017 2192490 10.12.2018 6 E/75346/2021 05.05.2019 6434660 23.12.20 6434660 NA 4,97,19,570 2,89,54,380 2. The Appellants' are manufacturers of iron and steel products of different grades/varieties. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge was mainly on the aspect of computation of the differential duty. The department has adopted a uniform value for each month, and that too the highest value of sales to independent buyers, when in fact as per rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, the value of sales to independent buyers at the nearest point of removal to sister units, ought to have been taken. This point had been specifically raised by the Appellants in the reply to the show cause notices as well as in the submissions at the time of adjudication. However, the Commissioner has not discussed this point at all. 5. Though the Annexures to the show cause notices mention the values which have been adopted by the department, neither the relevant invoice No. of the sale to indep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable. Initially, on the direction of the department to pay duty on the basis of CAS-4 valuation in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, they had complied with the same and paid up the differential amount. It was only later that the department came up with a fresh plea and sought payment of differential duty in accordance with Rules 4 of the Valuation Rules. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Appellants deliberately mis-declared or suppressed any information with an intent to evade duty. Accordingly, they contended that the demands confirmed along with interest, by invoking extended period are not sustainable. For the same reason, no penalty imposable on them. In view of the above, they contended that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that it is a fit case to set aside the demand on the basis of revenue neutrality which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 11. By relying on the decision cited above, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality and accordingly, we set aside the same. 12. Regarding imposition of penalty, we observe that initially, on the direction of the department to pay duty on the basis of CAS-4 valuation in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, the Appellants' had paid up the differential amount. Later, after the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd (2007 (209) ELT 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
