2015 (10) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They cleared the excisable goods, Sulphuric Acid and Oleum to their sister unit/other units during the year 2004-05 on payment of duty as per Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rule 2000 at 110% of the cost of production of the goods. A show cause notice dtd 31.5.2006 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 3,71,511/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the ground that they have not correctly determined the value of the goods cleared during the period 1.4.2004 and 30.6.2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudicating Authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. For the proper appreciation of the case, we reproduce below the findings of the Commissioner as under: "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and written submissions made by the appellants as well as the case laws cited by them and find that the appellants is a public limited company and manufacturing Sulphuric Acid, Oleum which are also transferred to their another/sister units on payment of central excise duty, that the value determined for the said clearance by the appellants under Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 ie., 110% of the cost of their production based on the cost of production of such goods, that the appellants has no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted paying duty based on revised cost of production w.e.f 1.7.2003 on the basis of Audited Balance Sheet received by them on 18.6.2003. Thus it is established beyond doubt that the appellants have bonafide belief, which is duly supported by the fact it was never objected by the Dept in the year 2000-01, 2003-04 that the duty is required to be paid on revised cost of production only after balance sheet is finalised not w.e.f 1st April. I thus hold that there is no suppression of facts by the appellants justifying invoking of extended time limit under proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Act. Further there can not be any suppression when the facts are mentioned in balance sheet, which is public document as held by Hon'ble Tribunal in cases mentioned....