2022 (4) TMI 731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in a matter on rebound. 2. The order-in-original dated February 28, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Shillong was assailed before the Tribunal and it culminated in an order of March 22, 2018. Paragraph 4 of the relevant order of the Tribunal dealt with the present appellant's objection to the additional duty imposed. The Tribunal perceived that the valuation of the goods sold to a related party or a sister concern should have been computed on cost of production basis which was not undertaken by the appellant herein. The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant's computation of its tax liability did not conform to the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt noticed that the CESTAT had not looked into the entire circumstances, particularly a notification of March 27, 2008. The relevant notification of March 27, 2008 reduced the quantum of refund from the entire amount to only the extent to which value had been added in course of the process of the manufacture. At the time that the order of this Court was passed on March 26, 2019, there was a challenge to the notification of March 27, 2008 that was pending before the Supreme Court. However, it is the admitted position that the relevant matter has been disposed of and the notification has been upheld. Thus, the position now is that even in the North-East a manufacturer cannot claim 100 per cent refund of the excise duty or sales tax component....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of 2000 and when the assessee produced no evidence to substantiate its claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties at the prevailing market prices, the intention to evade duty payable would arise and an adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. The Tribunal also noticed that no effort was made by the assessee to show the prices charged to the related party or compare such prices to those charged to independent parties. The Tribunal noticed that there was a charge against the assessee that it had deliberately over-valued the goods cleared to related parties in an attempt to obtain a higher refund. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indulged in under-valuation as per its convenience, "to shor....