2021 (11) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3.2019. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant assessee was availing the benefit of Notification no. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, as was applicable to eligible units in the north eastern region, by virtue of which the duty paid in cash would be eligible for refund. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.08.2013 (SCN) alleging incorrect valuation of final products cleared to related parties during the period April 2000 to March 2012. The said SCN was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Shillong, vide Order dated 28.02.2014 whereby the duty amount alongwith interest was confirmed and penalty imposed for not valuing the final products under Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mplete revenue neutrality is linked with the question of imposition of penalty in the context of the intention of a party to evade duty. 7. Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) envisages that intent to evade payment of duty attracts imposition of penalty. The words with intent to evade payment of duty as employed in sub-section (1)(a) of the Act assumes significance. It is clear that the duty is chargeable but it is 100% refundable, the question of intention to evade payment of duty pales into insignificance. But where the duty charged is not 100% refundable, then any act of concealment, misstatement or suppression of facts will give rise to the intention to evade payment of duty. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s made submissions in the present remand proceedings in their attempt to contest the entire portion of the adjudication order, including the duty demand, we are not inclined to entertain the challenge sought to be made on valuation aspects, for the reason that the same cannot be re-opened when no appeal was admittedly filed by the assessee. The challenge to the previous order dated 22.03.2008 of the Tribunal was limited to setting aside of penalty, which was the only grievance of the Revenue in their appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. 6. On perusal of the case records, we find that the assessee has not valued the goods in compliance with the Valuation Rules. The appellant has contended that they have cleared the goods on the basis of ....