TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute, there was no need to look further and regardless of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 8, the assessable value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. Since the issue of valuation of the goods which are cleared for captive consumption to assessee s own units is now settled by the Gangotri Electrocastings Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Patna (2012 (7) TMI 321 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) and Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Bhubaneshwar-I (2011 (12) TMI 438 - CESTAT KOLKATA); therefore, impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside - On perusal of the said judgment / order, we find that their Lordships was disposing a writ petition filed by the petitioner therein, for declaring Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 as ultra vires of Section 4, Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also ultra vires of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) and Articles 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds raised along with interest but did not impose any penalty on M/s. RIL. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant is before the Tribunal and revenue is also aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority in not imposing any penalty on the appellant and have filed appeals. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. RIL draws our attention specifically to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and submits that the adjudicating authority has recorded that the issue is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) ELT 185 but also relied upon the Board s Circular dt. 30.06.2000 and followed by Circulars dt. 01.07.2002 and 13.02.2003 to hold against appellant. It is his submission that adjudicating authority has not disputed that there is a factory gate sale of the same products to independent buyers and appellant had discharged appropriate central excise duty on such clearances and also applied the same assessable value for discharging duty on the clearances made to their own units at Patalganga, Hazira, etc. He relies upon following decisions: (i) Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad - 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the records. 9. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding determination of correct assessable value on the excisable goods cleared by M/s. RIL to their own units situated elsewhere in the country. 10. Undisputed facts are M/s. RIL has discharged central excise duty on the clearances made to their own unit by determining value based on the assessable value of the same products cleared to independent buyers. It is also undisputed that the clearances to independent buyers are accepted by the department as based on transaction value. 11. On the factual matrix as indicated hereinabove, we find that the revenue seeks to demand a differential duty from M/s. RIL on the ground that they should have followed the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority is in error in confirming the demands on this point as provision can be brought into play when the value of a particular product cannot be ascertained if only consumed captively. Our this view is fortified by the order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng operations on behalf of the Dolvi Unit, the provisions of Rule 8 will not apply. We, therefore, hold that Rule 8 is inapplicable in the instant case. 6. We also note that in the present case the application of Rule 4 is being disputed by the Revenue not on the ground that the said rule is inapplicable to the present case but on the ground that a more specific provision in Rule 8 is available to enable determination of the assessable value. As discussed above, the provisions of Rule 8, in our view, are not applicable to the present case and therefore the value determined by the assessee under Rule 4 deserves acceptance. 7. We also agree with the submission of the assessee that even if both the rules, i.e. Rule 4 and Rule 8, were applicable, it would only be logical to read and apply the various rules in the Central Excise Valuation Rules in a sequential manner. Though the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not specifically prescribe such sequential application of various rules, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 12. The above said order of the Larger Bench has been followed by this bench in the case of Daman Ganga Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman, Vapi (supra) and in the case of Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhavnagar (supra) (wherein one of us was a member). We also find that identical views have been expressed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gangotri Electrocastings Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Patna (supra) and Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Bhubaneshwar-I (supra). Since the issue of valuation of the goods which are cleared for captive consumption to assessees own units is now settled by the above said decisions, as also by the decision of the Larger Bench, we are of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 13. At this juncture, we have to address to the concerns raised by the Ld. Departmental Representative on the ratio of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-III (supra). On perusal of the said judgment / order, we find that their Lordships was disposing a writ petition filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
