TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby, demand of Rs. 9,19,985/- along with penalty under Rule 25, as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, has been upheld. The period of demand is from January 2010 to December 2010. Similarly, in appeal no. 25057, the appellant has come in appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 08.10.2012, whereby, the demand for the period January 2011 to October 2011 as confirmed by Adjudicating Authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), for setting aside penalty under Rule 25. 2. The issues in both these appeals are identical and these orders are relating to periodical demands raised by the Department from time to time. 3. The issue, in brief, is that Department felt that the appellant are not correctly discharging Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the nature of stock transfer and not sale, rejecting the evidence of payment of VAT at the time of clearance from factory. Further, for arriving at the said conclusion, the nomenclature of the "commission" used in the agreement was held to be conclusive against the appellant. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants has mainly submitted that the demand pertaining to these appeals are periodical in nature and for the earlier period i.e. from August 2005 to December 2009, the Tribunal has already decided the issue in the favour of the appellant in appeal no. E/2780/2011-Ex-DB vide order dated 29.11.2023. It was further reiterated that no other grounds/allegations were made to levy excise duty by the Department either in the course of asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ELT 175], Adani G/as Ltd., Vs CC, Ahmedabad in Final Order No. A/10685/2019 dated 16.04.2019. We also note that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Maha nagar Gas Ltd., referred supra, was challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the order of the Tribunal was further upheld by the Apex Court. We also note that subsequent to the order dated 29.11.2023 of the Tribunal, a Miscellaneous Application No. E/ROM/30041/2024 for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) was filed by the Revenue, in which, inter alia, various discrepancies with reference to said order were pointed out. The Bench, vide it's order dated 28.02.2024, interalia, made certain factual corrections in the Final Order dated 29.11.2023, however, in so far as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as mainly contested that they are related persons, which is an admitted fact and not even disputed by the appellants and this is not a new ground. We find that invocation of Rule 7 could have been made for any of grounds covered under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act 1944. In other words, if any of the condition under Section 4(1)(a) is not met, then recourse has to be taken 4(1)(b). Para 4 of SCN clearly brings out the grounds for raising demand and is cited below for ease of reference: "In the instant case, M/s BGL had manufactured Compressed Natural Gas at Mother Station through compressors and supply CNG from the tap-off point/Mother Station or from its line to the intake line for Online Station or into the storage cascade....