2018 (7) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r unit at a price lower than that ought to have been determined in terms of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. While taking stock transfer of the said goods to their another unit (at Pune) for consumption of the same in production of other articles leading to short payment of Central Excise duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,75,967/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under section 11AC of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 2. Ld.Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating authority. Regarding the aspect of allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty, I find it is the case of the appellant that there had been no contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 in as much as they had paid the duties on the basis of 110% of the cost of productionof each of the goods as ascertained on the basis of cost data available with them at the time of removal of the goods from their factory. Actual cost data for any goods can be ascertained only after close of the relevant year and that they cannot be, and hence are not, available at the time of removal of the goods any time during the year. Therefore, as per general practice in the trade, duties ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpugned notice, which shows their bona fide intention. I further find that the impugned goods were cleared on the basis of stock transfer to the appellant's other unit at pune. That being the position, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty in a revenue neutral situation, since whatever duty is paid by the appellant is available as cenvat credit to its other unit receiving the goods along with the duty payment documents. I find that neither any credible evidence been adduced by the Department in support of the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty nor has the aspect of such allegation been established clearly in the impugned order with corroborative evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that suppression of fact....