Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1024 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - stock transfer - clearance of goods to the own sister units - Rule 11 read with Rules 5,8 & 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Value of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - demand for differential duty - Held that:- Since no sale is involved in such transfer, valuation is required to be done in terms of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Department, during Audit, formed an opinion that the valuation has not been done in terms of the above Rule and in terms of CAS-4 Standard prescribed in this regard - there is no legal basis for addition of this freight amount. The goods are required to be valued at the time of clearance from the appellant’s unit and freight upto the recipient unit is not required to be added - there is no justification for adding such amount for arriving at the differential duty. Valuation - PVC Waste - Rule 8 of Valuation Rules - Held that:- There is no infirmity in this stand since as per the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the Ispat Industries [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], the valuation of the goods as per sale to independent buyer, may be adopted even in respect of clearance to sister unit. Revenue neutrality - Held that:- This is a case for revenue neutrality inasmuch as any differential duty paid by Diamond Harbour Unit will be available as cenvat credit by receiving unit. On the ground of revenue neutrality also, there is no basis for demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty. The demand restricted for differential duty to ₹ 46,44,174/-, which has been admitted and paid by the appellant - there is no justification for imposition of penalty - appeal allowed in part.
|