TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order has held that duty was liable to be paid on value inclusive of the cost of free supply of pig iron. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs. 1,74,433/- has been confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Penalties amounting to the same amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules have also been imposed. In addition, interest also has been demanded. The appellants' contention all through has been that they were paying duty at the contracted prices and there was no intention to evade payment of duty. They also contend that the demand is time barred. The Commissioner rejected their contentions on the ground that the appellants had suppressed the fact about free rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... flow of additional consideration directly or indirectly from the buyer. The learned DR submits that it is a case where the assesse had suppressed correct state of affairs from the Department and had filed also a false declaration that there was no other consideration. The learned DR, therefore, emphasised that this is a case clearly covered by the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act which stipulated that in the case of wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, recovery proceedings can be initiated within five years of the evasion. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Para 7 of the Supreme Court's decision in the Burn Standard Co. Ltd. case covers the issue raised in this case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) = 1985 (3) SCC 314, this Court while interpreting Sections 3 and 4 of the Act held as under : - "The fact that the petitioners are not the owners of the end-product is relevant. Taxable event is manufacture - now ownership."." 5. We are not able to accept the appellants' submission regarding time bar also. The appellants had not disclosed to the Revenue authorities about the receipt of free supplies of pig iron. In fact, they had given a certificate entirely contrary to the factual position "that there was no additional consideration in the transaction". In these circumstances, it has to be held that the appellants had suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of correct central excise d....