2007 (11) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment of the duty on account of wrong valuation, which was found out by the Audit team of the Central Excise Department. Therefore, action was taken to recover the differential duty to the tune of Rs. 1,26,09,443/-. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant invoking the longer period. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed mandatory penalties. However, the appellants approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal, in the Final Order No. 1486/2006 dated 05-09-2006, confirmed the demand of duty because the same was not challenged and set aside the penalty and interest on the ground that the duty was paid before the issue of the show cause notice. The appellants, after payment of the short levy pointed out by the audit, issued s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t urged by the learned JCDR is that on the date of issue of supplementary invoice, the sister unit namely M/s. Lanco Kalahasti Casting Ltd. (M/s. LKCL in short) got merged with the appellant unit in view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order and in view of that merger, on the date of issue of the supplementary invoice, the recipient company viz. M/s. LKCL did not exist at all. On this ground also, the credit could not have been taken. These points have been urged by the learned JCDR. Thus, he reiterated the OIO passed by the Commissioner. 6.  On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri G. Prabhakara Sastry urged that it is not correct to say that there is suppression of facts. He said that the show cause notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion and amalgamation get automatically stand transferred to the transferee company i.e. LIL. Assuming for a moment that there was a short levy of duty of excise on transactions made by LKCL with any other company by name XYZ before its dissolution and amalgamation with LIL, it is difficult to imagine that the C.E. department would not issue a Show Cause Notice to LIL proposing to demand the duty short levied. The department would not appreciate any submission by LIL that since LKCL is no longer in existence and since the Show Cause Notice was issued after such dissolution, LIL cannot be held responsible to pay up the duty short-levied." In view of the above, he said that the recovery of the Cenvat credit is not correct and also the i....