2024 (9) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he demand of Rs. 1,90,646/- on the appellant under section 11A and imposed an equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the Act]. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is about the valuation of the goods cleared by the appellant under section 4 of the Act read with Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 [Valuation Rules]. The period covered in this order is August 2015 to August 2016 and it is a follow up demand for an earlier order passed for the period October 2010 to July, 2015. 3. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find that this bench had, by final order No. 51135 of 2022 dated 02.12.2022, decided as follows in respect of the previous pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be a ground to invoke extended period of limitation. f) The appellant cannot be faulted for not disclosing any information (such as its relationship with Vandana and Shivali in this case) in the ER-1 return because it is not required to do so. The Rules empower the officer to call for any information or records and the officer scrutinizing the returns could have called for any information which he felt was necessary to check the valuation. g) It is not correct to say that had the audit not been conducted, the alleged errors in assessment would not have come to light because they would have come to light if the officers had scrutinized the Returns and called for any data or records which they needed. The fact that audit ha....