TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appeal of the Respondent/Assessee JSW Steel Limited 2. On the issue of extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act, the Tribunal held in favour of the Assessee that the Assessee could not be attributed with any suppression of relevant facts in regard to the valuation under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 in respect of Steel Bars, Rods etc. transferred by them to their Sister Concerns during the period in question viz., 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 by the show cause notice issued on 19.8.2010 as Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which permits only one year prior to the issuance of show cause notice to be covered by it, there is a case of suppression of facts made out against the Assessee and theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from October 2007. 14.3. In the circumstances, the allegations of suppression, misstatement, etc., cannot be made on the appellants and in consequence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked based on such allegations. This being so, we find that the Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2010 is hit for the most part by limitation and that the demand can only survive for the normal period from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. So ordered." 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, reiterating the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, urged that the Assessee did not disclose the facts to the Department that the goods in question were transferred by them to their Sister Concerns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also transferred to the Associated Company should be strictly based on CAS 4 valuation and duty paid accordingly. 6. The learned counsel Mr.R.Parthasarathy, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the Audit objection only, the said Authority of the Central Excise Department viz., Superintendent of Central Excise had advised the Assessee to adopt the method of valuation of such goods transferred to the Sister Concerns as per Rule 8 viz., as per CAS 4 valuation method viz., 10% over and above the cost or in other words at the rate of 110% of the transferred cost, as against the transactional value with unrelated parties of the transferred goods under Rule 4 of the Rules. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessee changed its valuation meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f related party as per accounting standard 18 in Annual Report of the Company for the year 2006-07. Even as per the status report (16.05.2007) of Joint MD & CEO, of the company. The JSW Group acquired the shares of M/s.SISCOL declared as sick from the erstwhile promoter viz., LMW, in the year 2004 recently the SISCOL has been merged with JSW Iron Steel (Jindal group) vide resolution passed in your Board meeting on 25th October 2007. Therefore, the valuation of re-rollable products (chapter heading 72) to Jindal Steel works should be valued based on CAS 4 value of the standard prescribed by the Institute Cost & Works Accounts of India vide Board circular cited. During the year 2005-06 and 2006-07, you have transferred Bars & Rods for self....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities and therefore, the Show Cause Notice issued to the Assessee on 19.8.2010 could not cover the period in question viz., 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 except to the extent of one year from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice on 19.8.2010 and therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding in favour of the Assessee to that extent. 10. We fail to understand that when the Assessee had changed its method of valuation on the advice of the Department's Authority himself based on some Audit objection as indicated in the communication dated 17.1.2008, how by turning the tables on the Assessee, the Adjudicating Authority, without referring to the said communication dated 17.1.2008, could invoke the extended period of limitation an....