2024-VIL-430-CESTAT-KOL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Valuation of goods transferred to another unit for captive consumption – Appellant case that value of goods transferred to another unit for captive consumption is to be in accordance with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - Whether the appellant has paid the duty correctly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules – HELD - The Revenue sought to distinguish the decision of appellant’s own case for the earlier period on the ground that in the case of Ispat Industries, the Larger Bench held that the assessable goods transferred to another plant of the same assessee is required to determine the value as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules as the goods were sold to the independent buyers also - The decision of Ispat Industries is distinguishable on the facts of the case, as in that case, the goods were cleared to another plant not for captive consumption whereas in the case in hand, the goods in question have been cleared to their sister unit for captive consumption in manufacturing of excisable goods, which has been cleared by the appellant on payment of duty Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to this case - the CBEC Circular dated 13.02.2003 on the basis of which the appellant paid the duty is binding on the Revenue - the appellant has correctly paid the duty on the goods in question, which has been captively consumed by the sister unit for manufacturing of excisable goods in terms of CBEC Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003. On merit, the appellant has rightly paid the duty as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case - the demand of duty is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed - Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not – HELD - the appellant was paying duty following the decision in their own case - for the period from April, 2009 to November, 2013, a show-cause notice was issued on 22nd December, 2015 is barred by limitation as the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the Department while paying duty and on finalization of provisional assessment, Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the appellant - Whether it is a case of revenue neutrality or not – HELD - the appellant is clearing the goods in question to their sister unit, who is entitled to take the cenvat credit itself. In that circumstances, it is a revenue neutral situation. On this count also, the appellant is not liable to pay differential duty as adjudicated by the adjudicating authority - Whether in the absence of challenge of final assessment order, a show-cause notice issued to the appellant is maintainable or not – HELD - during the impugned period, the appellant cleared the goods provisionally paying duty and all the provisional assessments have made final and the said final assessments have been accepted by the Revenue. In that circumstances, without challenging the said final assessment, the Revenue cannot proceed to issue of show cause notice to the appellant - the SCN was not required to be issued without challenging the order of final assessment of the provisional assessments.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page