2017 (10) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics and cleared the same to their subsidiary M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. during the period from February 2003 to March 2004 on payment duty at the transaction value, that is', by adding 4% margin of profit to the manufacturing cost, instead of discharging duty on the value equal to 115%/110% of the cost of manufacture, as applicable during the relevant period in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 15.5.2006 invoking extended period of limitation for recovery of the differential duty of Rs. 13,80,542/- short paid along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tire quantity ultimately exported, under rebate. It is her contention that the removal of goods to their sister concern were disclosed in their ER-1 return filed from time to time. It is her further contention that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has rightly observed that there was no suppression of the facts on the part of the Respondents as all the facts were revealed to the department including the fact that Raghuvir Exim Ltd was their subsidiary, in their respective Balance Sheets. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the instant case. Further, she has submitted that their records had been periodically audited by the department during 2002-03 and 2003-04, and all the records including the Balance sheets of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008 (228) ELT 598 (Tri-Chennai). 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. The short issue raised by the Revenue in the present case is: whether the demand issued to the Respondent invoking extended period of limitation is sustainable or otherwise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his finding observed that the Respondents had cleared the fabrics to their subsidiary, M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd, a related person within the meaning of amended Sec.4(4)(c) of CEA,1994, on the transaction value, but were required to discharge the duty on the value determined as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, that is, 115%/110% of the cost of manufacture, as applicable during the relevant period. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also observed ....