2013 (3) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant to make a pre deposit of Rs. 1.38 crores out of the total demand of Rs. 9.04 crores (Rs. 4.52 crores duty plus Rs. 4.52 crores equivalent penalty) as confirmed by the a common order dated 8-8-2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise for the purposes of entertaining the appellant's two appeals before it? 2. The appellant has two divisions viz. Cable division and Sheet division at Urse. From its two divisions it clears intermediate products to its sister units at Pimpri, Goa and Rorkee for use in manufacture of final products. These intermediate goods cleared by the two divisions to its sister units for captive consumption, discharge duty in accordance with Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 (Valuation Rules) i.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty aggregating in both the appeals to Rs. 9.01 crores. During the hearing of the stay application, the appellant pointed out that if the cost of manufacture is done strictly in accordance with final CAS-4 the demand of duty in the aggregate would be only Rs. 1.38 crores. However, the submission of the appellant before the Tribunal appears to have been only with regard to the demand being time-barred as recorded in Para-6 of the impugned order. The submissions in support of the plea for the time bar was that there is no revenue loss on account of revenue neutrality, therefore, no intent to evade duty. Further, it was contended that an audit has carried out in 2004 at which time an objection was taken with regard to incorrect payment of duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the appellant had declared that the costs of material was taken as prevailing in the month prior to the month for which Certificate has been issued. However, the revenue never objected to the same and let the appellant believe that the same was acceptable; (c) the audit objection of 2004 was in the knowledge of the department and in view thereof the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the revenue, and (d) the method followed by the appellant of furnishing monthly CAS-4 Certificates resulted in some months leading to short levy and to some months excess payment. If the entire period in both the appeals are considered together and by off setting the excess payments of duty paid there would be no duty payable at all. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut of the aggregate demand of Rs. 9.04 crores in both the appeals as confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise is reasonable. This is particularly so as the issue of revenue neutrality would have to be examined on merits after ascertaining what is the exact amount which is paid by units at Pimpri, Goa and Rorkee receiving the intermediate goods on which credit of duty paid is taken. The appellant at Page 18 of its appeal memo and at Exhibit-Q to the memo of the appeal in Appeal No. 77 of 2012 has given details only with regard to Pimpri and Goa units and not with regard to the Rorkee unit. Consequently, the same would be a matter of examination at the time of final hearing of the appeals. Further the issue whether there was any intent....