2004 (9) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....factured at the appellant's Damanjodi plant transferred to its Angul plant for captive use for manufacture of aluminium metal was liable to be determined on the basis of cost of production and can never be compared to the material and selling transactions involved some Stray sales to refractory manufacture and that too aggregating to only about 105 M.T. during the relevant period. He submits that since the comparable price were not there during the relevant period then the assessable value was liable to be determined under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of the cost of production. On that basis the assessable value was coming to Rs. 5,578/- PMT whereas the appellant had paid the duty on the inter-unit transfer of Rs. 9,100/- PMT. He submits that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it was accordingly barred by limitation under Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act. In present case all relevant facts relating to the said inter-unit transfer was fully explained by the applicant and was known to the Central Excise Authorities. There was no fraud or collusion or suppression of facts or misstatement. He, further, submits that at the Angul plant the appellant availed full CENVAT credit of whatever duty was paid because at the time of transfer to the Damanjodi plant, both the said plants are owned by and belonging to appellant itself. There was no Revenue involvement of any nature for the appellant and if any higher duty was to be paid at the time of clearance from Damanjodi plant it would have taken higher CENVAT credit of the s....