Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 212 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - goods cleared to the sister concerns and also for self-use within the factory of the appellant, which have been utilized in the expansion (civil works) projects - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 - HELD THAT:- To fit into the ambit of Rule 8, excisable goods are not sold by the assessee, but are used for consumption by him (viz., captive consumption) or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles. However, what is forthcoming from the facts is that the impugned goods which have been cleared for captive use or stock transferred to other units were not used for consumption by or on behalf of the appellant. The impugned goods were used for construction activities in the expansion projects of the appellant and/or sister units concerned. From the facts on record, it is also evident that the appellants had cleared CTD bars/rods to their group concerns situated at Vijayanagar, Tarapur and Vasind for utilization in various expansion projects of those entities. The appellant cannot come under the fold of “self consumption” as claimed by the appellants, to justify resorting to valuation at 110% of the cost of production as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - There is no doubt that some of the clearances made under the claim of “self consumption” were also for captive consumption. However, even in these cases, the impugned goods were only used for Expansion (Civil Works) Projects. Just because the goods have been captively consumed for use within the same factory, it cannot automatically fall within the four walls of Rule 8 ibid. To do so, the excisable goods should be used for “consumption” in the production or manufacture of other articles. The assessable value to be adopted in the case of the impugned goods cleared to sister concerns and also for self-use within the factory, which have only been utilized in expansion projects (civil or construction works), is required to be done as envisaged under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rule 11 ibid. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The allegations of suppression, mis-statement, etc., cannot be made on the appellants and in consequence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked based on such allegations - the SCN dated 19.08.2010 is hit for the most part by limitation and that the demand can only survive for the normal period from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Penalties - HELD THAT:- As the necessary ingredients for the imposition of penalties are absent and especially since there is absence of suppression, mis-statement, etc., equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be sustained and will require to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|