TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant during the period from 28.08.1986 to 31.03.1989. 2. The brief facts are, the Appellant manufactured UPS on the basis of purchase orders canvassed and sent to the appellant by M/s. Keltron Controls, a sister concern of the appellant and the goods were sent to M/s. Keltron Controls by following the procedure laid down in Rule 173 C (11) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is reproduced below. "173 C (11) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (6), the Collector may, having regard to the nature of goods manufactured or the frequent fluctuations of market price of such goods, allow an assessee or a class of assessees to declare the price of goods transacted by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were operating under Rule 173 C (11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 4. On remand, the Adjudication authority as per the order dated 21.09.1999 held that there was suppression of fact with an intent to evade duty and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 60,000- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and on rejection of said appeal vide order dated 27.11.2002, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal in 2005. As per the Final Order dated 26.08.2005, of the Tribunal the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. On De-novo Adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with the following observation:- "The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontrols. He also deposed that the additional component parts of UPS system are purely an optional standby equipment for use, batteries were an additional item to the system and UPS can work with or without battery depending on the period of power failure and also do not form part of the system. 7. Considering the above facts, Adjudication Authority in its initial order held that since the appellant had filed SDAs along with RT-12 Returns and when it is made available to the concerned officer, there is a failure on the part of department to probe the matter further rather than alleging suppression and confirming demand of duty by invoking the extended period of limitation. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the first Order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e demand and imposed penalty in accordance with law. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. We find that it is an admitted fact that the dispute pertains to the period from 28.08.1986 to 31.03.1989 and the issue is coming up for hearing for the third time. The appellant was following the procedure laid down in Rule 173C (11) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty payment was based on value shown in the SDAs. It was further sold by the sister concern of the appellant at higher rate by adding additional items as optional items, including battery etc., which are manufactured by other manufactures. Even as per the statement of the Senior Manager dated 30.10.1990, the purchase order was received from sister concern M/s. Keltron c....