2023 (8) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Alwar. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. The appellant manufacturers automotive components and castings, falling under Chapter Heading 8409 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 CETA 1985. During the period April 2011 to March 2013, it supplied these products to its sister unit and paid duty under Rule 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 Valuation Rules on 110% of the cost of production as per the Cost Accounting Standard-4 (CAS-4) Certificate issued by the Cost Accountant. The cost indicated in CAS-4 was based on the previous year's cost of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per Rule 8 & proviso to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 amounting to Rs. 10,21,294/- during the period from April, 2011 to March, 2013. However, it has come to the notice of the department during the course of audit of the records of the assessee. Had the audit of the records of the assessee not conducted, the above short payment would have not come into notice of the department, thus, it appears that the assessee have suppressed the facts willfully with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty and therefore, Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 10,21,294/- appears recoverable from the assessee along with interest under the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 11A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11) T.M.I. 832 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. versus CCE, Udaipur 2019 (12) T.M.I. 850 - CESTAT New Delhi (ii) The entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation and there is no evidence of suppression of facts. No intention to evade can be attributed to the appellant because this is a revenue neutral situation where the duty paid by the appellant was available to its own sister unit as Cenvat credit. In the absence of any evidence of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Reliance is placed on the following case laws :- Nirlon Ltd. versus CCE, Mumbai 2015 (320) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) Accurate Chemicals Industries versus CCE, Noida 2014 (300) E.L.T. 451 (Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ea for short payment of duty. Reliance is placed on M/s Star Industries versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Raigad 2015 (324) E.L.T. 656 (S.C.) (v) Extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked because the assessee was required to ensure that the duty is correctly paid and reflect in its ER-I returns. The Departmental Officers, on the other hand, as per the departmental instructions issued by Circular No. 882/7/2009 -CX dated 11.05.2009, were only required to conduct preliminary scrutiny of 100% returns and scrutiny of the assessment, on the basis of risk parameters, in some cases only. In this case, the scrutiny was not done for this reason; (vi) Had the audit not been conducted the short payment of duty would not have....