2008 (10) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r facts on record, the respondents were manufacturing Carbon Dioxide gas and was clearing the same to independent customers as also to their own unit on stock transfer basis. The assessable value adopted by them in respect of stock transfer was less than the assessable value at which the goods were being sold to other independent wholesale buyers. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice, by invoking longer period of limitation. The order of original adjudicating authority confirmed proposed demand of duty of Rs. 7,97,178/- and imposed penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC and of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal against the above order, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that there was no mala fide intention on their part, inasmuch as the entire duty paid by them was available as credit to their own unit and entire situation was revenue neutral. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that though there was suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, not to declare the price at which the goods have been sold to their sister unit but this suppression is not coupled with the intention to evade payment of duty. As he did not find any evidence on record which may establish suppression of facts, to evade payment of duty, he held that the extended period cannot be invoked and the impugned order confirming demand was not justified. He, however, held that the demand of duty within the statutory period is required to....