Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 162 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - removal of goods to the sister concern of the appellant - cost construction method - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - revenue neutrality - Held that: - the goods have been cleared by the appellant on payment of duty, therefore no malafide intention is proved. Whatever duty is discharged by the appellant unit is taken as cenvat credit by their sister concern who is recipient of the goods. Therefore any differential duty arises in this case was also available as cenvat credit to their recipient unit. This is clear case of revenue neutrality. For arriving at the revenue neutrality it is necessary to see whether the recipient unit is discharging the excise duty from the PLA or cash. The consignee unit of the appellant has paid excise duty not only from CENVAT but also from PLA which is more than the excise duty demand involved in the present case. On this fact revenue neutrality is established. If it is established that the duty payable/paid is available as cenvat credit to the recipient which is appellants own sister concern who is discharging duty from PLA which is more than the duty payable by the appellant, the case falls under the category of revenue neutrality, hence, no demand will sustain - Since we have taken a view that demand is not sustainable on revenue neutrality, we need not go to other aspect of valuation of goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|