LAWS(CE)-2004-5-255

VIKAS LAMINATERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On May 07, 2004
Vikas Laminaters Ltd. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30 -5 -2000.

(2.) The appellants are manufacturer of Printed and Laminated Sheets and Pouches falling under Heading 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They removed certain inputs from their unit to sister unit situated at A -46, Sector -58, Noida after reversing the amount of credit availed by them on those inputs. Proper invoice as per provisions of Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules were also issued. RT -12 returns were being filed enclosing therewith other related documents. While so, show cause notice dated 7 -3 -2002 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173C, 173F, 173G of the Central Excise Rules and Section 4 of Central Excise Act read with Rules 7 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and evaded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,69,453/ -. The demand was made on the allegation that the appellants have removed various inputs to their sister unit after debiting the Cenvat Credit availed on those inputs without extending the value to 115% of the landed cost of inputs or cost of production/manufacture of such goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. It was further alleged that the appellant have suppressed the facts at the time of submitting their marketing pattern as provided under Rule 173C(3A) of Central Excise Rules and they disposed of their goods through their depot/branch office/through units of the same group i.e. their sister concern.

(3.) The appellant submitted detailed reply on merits and also contended that the demand is barred by limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the order of adjudication the appellant filed an appeal which was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).