2024 (5) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case is that of valuation adopted by the Respondent when the goods were cleared from their depots. The department issued SCN for the period 2006 to 2011 on 27.12.2011 by invoking the extended period alleging that Respondent was realising higher value of the sales taken up by them from their depot. The Department also alleged that the Respondent was adopting lower assessable value while clearing the goods from their depots and there they were selling at higher price to their customers, thereby short paying the Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.24,43,399/-. The Respondent did not file any reply to the SCN, as has been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, he has passed the OIO ex-parte, based on the records available with him. Be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d how the demand was quantified. 4. From the OIO, it is seen that the matter has been decided on ex-parte basis. The relevant extract of Para 11 of OIO reads as under: "11. M/s Himanshi Ispat (P) Ltd., (herein after referred to as assesses/HIPL), Palamenru, have been served the present show cause notice and the same was received by the authorized signatory of the assessee on 29.12.2011. The assessees were specifically called upon in the show cause notice to show cause against the proposed action thereunder within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. It was further stated in the show cause notice that, "if no cause is shown against the action proposed to be taken within 30 days of receipt of this notice ........ the case will be decided ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actually sold at Bangalore by the dealer (appellant) to a preidentified customer, for the very same price, in the very same quantum, the very date of receipt at the depot and in the very same transport truck but under dealer's Invoice, ipso-facto, would not compel the appellant to come within the purview of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Further, it was argued by the appellant that the onus was on the department to prove that the assessable value adopted by the appellant for the payment of goods cleared at their factory was lower than the normal transaction value of such goods sold at their dealer's premises, to justify demand of any differential duty. However, in the pr....