Ispat Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cen. Excise on 14 May, 2007
25 - Similarly in the monthly ERI returns, IMIL have made a declaration in the assessment memorandum at Clause (b) as " We have assessed the ad-valorem duty on the clearance documents in terms of Section 4 of the Act read with Valuation Rules, 2000 or in terms of Section 4 A of the Act." Although, IMIL were aware of clearance of hot metal to III under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 @ 115%, they have mis-declared to the Department that the assessment of duty was as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Not only this, they have included Section 4A (MRP) as well. This is another example of suppression of facts by deliberate twisting of truth and by attempting to mislead the Department. Again, it is seen that in spite of having been asked to file the Price Declaration under erstwhile Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide letter No.CEX/R-PenlMIL/2000 at. 11.09.2000, they failed to file any price declarations. I rely upon Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment in the case of Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. v. CC and C.Ex. Bhopal wherein it was held that non filing of correct price declaration is a willful misrepresentation or the case of suppression. Further, it is also observed that IMIL had entered into an agreement with IIL for manufacture and supply of the entire quantity of hot metal only to IIL at a price which is 5% below the prevailing market price of the basic grade Pig Iron. This proves that everything was pre-planned with an intention to defraud the Govt. exchequer. Further, on being pointed out IMIL has paid the differential duty of Rs. 72,29,467/- for the years 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03 on account of non-inclusion of other elements i.e. bank charges, LC Commission on raw materials, exchange rate fluctuations, handling charges etc. in the cost of production as per CAS-4 standards which indicates that they do agree that it is not a trial run production. Thus, the above acts of the assessee invokes proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.