Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant carries on the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. For the said purposes the appellant has, inter alia, integrated steel plants at different places of the country. One such plant is situated at Durgapur in the State of West Bengal and is known as “Durgapur Steel Plant”(“DSP”). The instant appeal relates to the said DSP of the appellant.

2.1 DSP is duly registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as the Finance Act, 1994 for carrying out manufacturing and other activities in the said integrated steel plant.

2.2 On an annual basis the appellant submits before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, under due acknowledgement, a copy of the “Annual Statistics”, published on financial year basis, which consists of production and discharge summary, performance highlights, analysis of plant performance, despatch of iron and steel scrap etc. during the said financial year. The details of clearance of various steel scraps arising out of or during the course of manufacture of iron and steel products are also reflected in the said Annual Statistics. All the statutory returns and requisite documents has all along been duly submitted before the Departmental authorities.

2.3 In the course of manufacture of various iron and steel products viz. Billets, Blooms, TMT Bars etc. steel scraps like processed steel scraps, steel turning and borings, mould splashing, rejected wheels etc. are generated as a matter of course through the manufacture of the said iron and steel products. The said steel scraps are cleared upon payment of appropriate duty of excise by the appellant to external customers and are also cleared to its other sister units, including Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur (“ASP”), for further use in the manufacture of other iron and steel products therein. The said pattern of clearance of steel scraps to external customers as well as to its sister units by the appellant is evident from the section “Discharge of Iron and Steel Scrap” in the Annual Statistics., Recap statement, Relevant extracts thereof, covering the financial years 2001-02 to 2003-04 along with acknowledgement copies evidencing receipt thereof by the respondent authorities.

2.4 In accordance with the provision of Section 4 of the Act read with relevant provisions of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Valuation Rules”), the appellant determined the transaction value/assessable value of the said steel scraps and discharged the duty leviable thereon under the Act. The valuation was effected on realisable value/transaction value of the said steel scrap.

2.5 However, on April 27, 2005 the appellant received a show cause notice dated May 03, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur wherein it was alleged that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and Notification No. 68/2003-CE(MT) dated August 05, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Notification”) and Rules 4,6,8 and 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”), inasmuch as the appellant had allegedly cleared the said scrap falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 7204.90 of the Central Excise Tariff to its sister concern, ASP, for use in the manufacture of other articles during the said period by allegedly, deliberately under valuing the same and by suppressing relevant facts to the department and without determining the correct duty liability thereon and payment thereof, allegedly upon incorrect assessable value being declared in the monthly returns with intent to evade duty to the tune of Rs.1,27,02,287/-. On the said purported basis the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why central excise duty of Rs.1,27,02,287/-, allegedly evaded by the