Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 839 - AT - Central ExciseCaptively consumed goods - Valuation - goods captively consumed for further manufacturing of excisable goods from the factory premises - period involved is February 1997 to January 2002 - Held that:- as regards the period prior to 01.07.2000 provisions of Rule 6 (b)(i) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 could be applicable in the case wherein the goods are captively consumed as well as sold outside. Revenue's case is that the appellant should have discharged the duty liability on the captively consumed goods based upon the value of the comparable goods sold outside, while the claim is defended by the appellant on the ground that the captively consumed goods were of the substandard quantity. It is found that in the Grounds of Appeal also identical arguments are put forth, but no evidence is on record to show that the captively consumed yarn/goods were of substandard or inferior quality. In the absence of any such evidence we have to hold that the valuation of captively consumed goods needs to be done based upon the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 read with Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. As regards the liability post 01.07.2000, we find that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules are very clear inasmuch as the said Rules mandate from an assessee to discharge the duty liability on 110% or 115% of the cost of production of the goods. Apparently the appellant had produced a certificate from Chartered Accountant indicating the value for captively consumed goods, the same was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the Chartered Accountant has not justified the consumption of material was being inferior quality and was not evidenced by any supporting documents. Even before us also this findings are not contested. Therefore, in the absence of any supporting documents, we find that both the lower authorities are correct in confirming the demand raised along with interest and also imposition of penalty. - Decided against the appellant
|