TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng M.S. Ingots and alleging that the Appellant had sold the M.S. Ingots manufactured by them during the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13 without following the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Valuation Rules, 2000 to their sister concern, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued on 28.04.2015 and Adjudication authority as per the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017 confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the order dated 15.11.2019 rejected the appeal and aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(b) of the Act, based on the details contained in the ER-1 Return filed by the appellant for the period April 2013 to June 2014. The assessable value declared in the relevant ER-1 returns was taken as the cost of production for the purpose of ascertaining the value under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Valuation Rules, 2000. In this regard, Learned Consultant submits that the issue is revenue neutral. Both the units are owned and managed by the same management. Whatever duty paid by the appellants is available as cenvat credit to the other unit and the entire exercise is revenue neutral. 4. As regards limitation, learned consultant submits that the show cause notice was issued on 28.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants had suppressed the facts or contravened any provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty only for the purpose of invoking extended period of limitation. 5. As regarding the Revenue Neutrality, Learned Consultant relied on the following decisions:- (i) Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (5) TMI 101 SUPREME COURT] (ii) Commissioner of CGST & CX, Thana, Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited - SC Judgement dated 25.02.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.2409-2410 of 2019 (iii) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. CCE, Thane-I/PuneII FINAL ORDER NO. A/87562-87563/2024 dated 25.10.2024 (iv) M/s. Treadsdirect Limited-9 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kol.) - Final Order No.75528/2025 dated 24.01.2025 6. As regards invoking extended period of limitation, the learned consultant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2023 (385) ELT 481 (SC)] wherein it is held that if an assessee bona-fide believes that it was correctly discharging duty, then merely because the belief is ultimately found to be wrong by a judgment would not render such a belief of the assessee to be malafide and if a dispute relates to interpretation of legal provisions, it would be totally unjustified to invoke the extended period of limitation. As regarding invoking extended period of limitation, Learned Consultant relied following cases:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essable value to be 110% of cost of production as per provision to Rule 9. As regards demand by invoking extended period of limitation, Learned AR submits that short payment of duty and the relationship of the appellant with their sister concern M/s. Surabhi Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. was detected on the CERA Audit only and the appellant had not disclosed the same. Therefore, it is a clear case of mis-declaration and suppression of facts and the extended period of has been rightly invoked against the appellant. For this act, the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 11AC of the Act the same has been rightly imposed on the appellant. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. We find that the proceedings were initiated ....