TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law, on the ground that in respect of DTA sales made by 100% EOU (Unimin India Ltd) to the Appellants, the Appellants allegedly paid cash amounts over and above the price mentioned in Excise Invoices of the 100% EOU, 1.2 Whether it is established by evidence that the Appellants had paid cash amounts over and above the price mentioned in the Excise Invoices of the 100% EOU, towards the price of the goods purchased by the Appellants from the 100% EOU. 1.3 Whether in any event, the price charged by the 100% EOU for goods cleared in DTA, is entirely irrelevant to the question of valuation of goods cleared in DTA, since under the Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the duty on such goods is payable on the value determined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (All). 2.1 He further submits that the statement of various persons relied upon in the show cause notice are not admissible in evidence unless the requirements of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act,1944 are satisfied by examination of the deponents of the statements before the adjudicating authority. Reliance is placed in this behalf on the following judgments:- a) J & K Cigarettes Ltd v CCE - 2009 (242) ELT 18 b) Basudev Garg v CC - 2013 (294) ELT 353. 2.2 He further submits in any event, the price charged by the 100% EOU for goods cleared in DTA, is entirely irrelevant to the question of valuation of goods cleared in DTA, since under the Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the duty on such goods is payable on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appeal can be decided only on the one issue i.e. whether penalty under Rule 209A can be imposed on partnership firm. In this regard, following judgments support the case of the appellant. * Commissioner v Woodmen Industries - 2004 (170) ELT A307 "The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Central Excise Law does not permits Commissioner of Central Excise to assume power under Income-tax Act. The Tribunal further relying on an earlier order in the case of Aditya Steel Industries [1996 (84) E.L.T. 229 (Tribunal)] held that penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposable only on a person and not on a firm. The Tribunal also held allegation of receipt of additional consideration from buyer is not s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OU and such CT-2/Annexure I certificates were issued by the jurisdictional Range Officer. Even the C.E. duty involved on the quantity of the cotton yam sought to be purchased from the Noticee No. 1 as mentioned in CT-2/Annexure I certificate, had been computed by treating M/s. I.C. Textiles as a DTA unit, not by treating it a 100% EOU. Noticee Nos. 2 to 7, being fully aware of the provisions of the EXIM Policy as well as Central Excise Rules, should have known that they were not be entitled to purchase the goods free of C.E. duty from a 100% EOU under Rule 13(I)(b) of CER, 1944/Rule 19(2) of CER, 2001/2002 for use in the manufacture of goods for export, but still they purchased cotton yarn without payment of duty from Noticee No. 1. I also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had reasons to believe that the goods procured by them were confiscable. On the contrary, the appellants had a reason to believe that the documentation of the impugned goods were free from any encumbrance of Central Excise, mainly on the ground that those were procured under Annexure-I, duly endorsed by competent authority of Central Excise. (vii) That the Revenue's case is based upon the fact that 100% EOU can make only such clearances in DTA as specified in the aforesaid provisions. It was not possible for the appellant to know whether the clearances made by M/s. I.C. Textiles are other than those "specified under the aforesaid provisions", under which admittedly same could be clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligation on the part of the purchasers to disclose that the supplier is a 100% EOU, we note that the fact of M/s. I.C. Textiles being 100% EOU was clearly available from the invoices issued by them. A sample invoice stand produced before us and we note that 100% EOU stand prominently displayed in the middle of the body of invoice issued by M/s. I.C. Textiles. As such, it cannot be said that the said fact was suppressed from the Revenue with any intention to evade duty. We also note that buyers of the yarn on the basis of the legal certificate issued by the Department cannot be expected to know as to whether 100% EOU is entitled to sell the goods in question in DTA or not. We also find force in the appellant's contention that the entire situ....