Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1014 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - clearance of HTS wire to their sister concern for pressed concrete slippers by the said sister concern - non-compliance of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - rejection of declared value on the ground that Department has been of the opinion that in the given scenario the duty should have been paid by the appellant on the value of goods at 110% of the cost of production of such goods and would have provided CAS- 4 - whether excess payment made during a particular period can be adjusted towards the short payment of another period? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal Ahmedabad in case of M/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-VADODARA-I [2015 (10) TMI 1242 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that in a case of inter-unit transfer of goods by the appellant’s own company and that where the appellant had paid excess duty as well as some short payment of duty amount of CAS-4 since there was no sale of goods involved the adjustment of excess against the short payment is permissible. Decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2004 (7) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] was followed. In the appellant’s own case in the appeals as mentioned by the appellant in the same facts and circumstances in M/S. PATIL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. JAIPUR-I [2019 (3) TMI 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the setting off of the excess payments against the short payment of duty during a subsequent period has already been allowed there are no reason to differ from the adjudications. The adjudicating authority below has failed to consider the CAS-4 certificate issued by the authorised auditors proving the excess payments of duty made by the appellant in terms of Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the valuation rules. The certain short payments in terms of all these rules have wrongly been denied to be set off against the said excess - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|