9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments Shri Banerjee raised a ground that they have argued that the show cause notice itself is barred by limitation and a number of arguments were advanced during the course of hearing. However, the said arguments have not been dealt with and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Though this plea is not incorporated in the ROM since it was argued during the course of hearing, we have taken up this issue. The Collector in para 1.6 in his Order-in-Original gave a finding that the provisions of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A are correctly invokable. He referred to Section 11A, perhaps it is a mistake for the proviso to Section 11A. We have not considered this issue in our order. We, therefore, recall the order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants. It has particularly been pointed out that the Order-in-Original has noted that the appellant M/s. Elpro had sold their goods to M/s. I.G.E. and had filed price lists in Part-IV declaring the prices at which M/s. I.G.E. sold the goods to final customers and M/s. Elpro paid duty on the price so finally charged by M/s. I.G.E. 3.1The Tribunal's order in appeal also took note of the fact that M/s. Elpro was paying duty from October 1st, 1975 onwards on prices at which the goods were finally sold by M/s. I.G.E. 3.2It has also been submitted that the department was all along aware of the nature of the transaction between M/s. Elpro and M/s. I.G.E. and had treated them as related persons. The department was aware that M/s. Elpro's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector of Central Excise, Bombay. 5. 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 - Collector of Central Excise v. HMM Limited. 6. 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 - Pushpam Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise. 7. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 - Collector of Central Excise v. Malleable Iron Steel Castings. High Court judgment II. relied upon : (Bombay) 1. 1995 (80) E.L.T. 759 - EWAC Alloys Limited v. Union of India. III.CEGAT's judgments relied upon : 1. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 775 - Quality Steel Industries v. Collector of Central Excise. 2. 1992 (57) E.L.T. 639 - ITEC (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. 3. 1992 (58) E.L.T. 108 - Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that M/s. Elpro suppressed the fact that incomplete X-ray machines were despatched to the related person who completed the assembly/manufacture by addition of X-ray tube unit etc. The notice also has alleged that the assessee, M/s. I.G.E. had adopted the modus of bifurcation of prices by fixing arbitrary price for the items manufactured by M/s. Elpro and inflating the profit margins on goods bought from B.E.L. The notice has also alleged that through debit notes M/s. Elpro was recovering differential price. The learned Senior Departmental Representative also drew our attention to the allegation contained in the show cause notice that assessee's intention to evade Central Excise duty by under-valuing products is clear from the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customers. Accordingly, the department had taken a conscious decision that this is a case of sale to related person and the price of the related person should constitute the assessable value. The price list had, accordingly, been approved treating the price of M/s. I.G.E. as the assessable value. The records of the case do not show that any relevant facts relating to this relationship or the price between M/s. Elpro and M/s. I.G.E. and M/s. I.G.E. and their customers which was known to M/s. Elpro had been suppressed or mis-stated by M/s. Elpro to the Central Excise authorities. The assembly of X-ray machine by M/s. I.G.E. from the parts supplied by M/s. Elpro and bought from other manufacturers and the various charges levied by M/s. I.G.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
