TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Blooms, M.S. Billets, etc., falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7207 19 20, 7218 99 90 and 7207 19 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant manufactures the said goods in its factory situated at MIDC Industrial Area, Butibori (for short, referred to as 'unit-B2'). The goods manufactured in the said factory are cleared to the appellant's other units located at Nagpur for further use/utilization in the manufacture of dutiable final products. The appellant also effects sale of its products to the independent buyers. During scrutiny of appellant's statutory re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant should appropriately be determined on the basis of the price at which the other units were purchasing the identical goods from independent manufacturers. He further submitted that determination of assessable value under Rule 4 ibid cannot be considered as legal and proper. The Learned Advocate also submitted that the entire exercise done in this case is revenue neutral inasmuch as whatever excess duty leviable on the goods cleared from the appellant's Unit-B1 would be available as Cenvat credit to the other units. The Learned Advocate also submitted that the proceedings initiated by the department for confirmation of the adjudged demands are barred by limitation of time inasmuch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviso appended to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should rightly be available to the department for recovery of the short levy/short paid duty amount from the appellant. She has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat-I v. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 369 (Guj.) and the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of C. Ex., Aurangabad - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 103 (Tri. - Del.) and Chemfab Alkalis Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pondicherry - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 264 (Tri. - Chennai) to support the case of Revenue that the show cause proceedings are not barred by the limitation of time. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certainment of the correct duty liability. 7. The period of dispute involved in this case is from April, 2006 to March, 2007. By invoking the proviso appended to Section 11A ibid, the department had issued the show cause notice to the appellant, seeking for recovery of the adjudged demands. Insofar as recovery of short/non-levied or non-payment of duty is concerned, the said statute mandates that the Central Excise officer shall issue the show cause notice within one year from the relevant date on the person, requiring him to show cause as to why the duty amount shall not be recovered. The period of one year is prescribed for effecting recovery in the normal circumstances. Whereas, in the case of non-levied/paid, short levied or short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, the present show cause proceedings were initiated by the department vide notice dated 15-3-2010, alleging that the appellant had suppressed the material particulars regarding non-observance of the procedures laid down under Rule 8 ibid and thus, it is liable to pay the differential duty under the proviso to Section 11A ibid. On perusal of the relevant records, we are convinced that the appellant had informed the department regarding the modus operandi adopted by it in sending the disputed goods to its sister's units and also reasonably believed that the valuation provisions contained in Rule 8 ibid should be available for such transactions. Thus, under such circumstances, the rigor itemized in the proviso clause under Section 11A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the case laws relied upon by the Learned Advocate support the case of the appellant that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the circumstances, when the department was fully aware of the manufacturing activities and the information regarding sale of goods to different category of manufacturers were already in knowledge beforehand. In the case of Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have ruled that something done with bona fide belief, without involvement of any mala fide intention to defraud the Government revenue, the proviso to Section 11A(1) ibid cannot be invoked. Further, it has also been held that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant ....