2015 (9) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confirmed as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00 has also been imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Shri Willingdon Christian, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that show cause notice dt.21.07.2008, demanding interest for the clearances made during April to December 2006, is clearly time barred.  He relied upon the following case laws:- i) GSFC Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara-I [2013 (289) ELT 489 (Tri-Ahmd)] ii) GSFC Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Vadodara-I [Order No.A/10539/2015, dt.16.02.2015 (Appeal No.E/689/2008)] 2.1 On merits, learned Advocate argued that in case of cost construction method, for goods supplied to Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uired to be discharged @ 110% of the cost of production under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The duty was discharged on the basis of previous years cost data and subsequently CAS-4 certificate was produced by the Appellant for the relevant period.  Differential duty of Rs. 82,52,210.00 was paid by the Appellant on 24.08.2007 for the clearances made during April 2006 to December 2006. Show cause notice demanding duty and for imposing penalty was issued on 21.07.2008. It is the case of the Appellant primarily that demand of interest is made beyond a period of one year from the date of clearances as per relied upon case law including one in their own case. It is observed from their case law GSFC Ltd Vs CCE & C Vadodara-I (supra) that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In this regard, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has relied upon the case laws of CCE & C Vadodara-II Vs Indeos ABS Ltd (supra) and in the case of CCE Pune II Vs Siddheshwar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd. (supra) where in both Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court have held that in the case of supplies to sister concern, demands cannot be upheld being a revenue neutral situation. However, Revenue Neutrality may not arise in a case where buyer and seller are not sister concerns. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Pune II Vs Siddheshwar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd. (supra) held as follows:- 8.The matter was carried by the Revenue against this Tribunals order in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Cour....