9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Area, Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura (Unit - II) and A-5 and C-7, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura (Unit - III). The period of dispute is from 2003-2004 to January 2009. During this period both the units were manufacturing metallised polyester/plastic metallised film for themselves and also for others on job work basis. In respect of the metallised film manufactured on job work basis, the plastic/polyester film was being received from their customers and only the aluminium wire used for metalising procured by the appellant were being used, in respect of which, Cenvat credit was being availed. The films manufactured on job work basis were being cleared without payment of duty under job work challans under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit Rules, 2004. 1.2 Another objection of the department was that the appellant had a number of clearances on stock transfer basis from their one unit to another for captive consumption, but in respect of such clearances, instead of paying duty on the assessable value determined on the basis of 115%/110% of the cost of production under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the duty was paid on the basis of price at which the same goods had been sold to independent buyers, which according to the department, is not correct. 1.3 It is on the above basis that the four show cause notices, the details of which are given below, were issued to the appellant for demand of differential duty/amount under Rule 6(3)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rances on stock transfer basis from one unit of the appellant to other unit are concerned, since the appellant have sales of the same goods to independent buyers, it is that price which has to be adopted and not the price determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, on the basis of 110%/115% of the cost of production, that in this regard he relies upon the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri. - LB), wherein it was held that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 would not apply in a case where part of the production is cleared to independent buyers and part is cleared for captive consumption or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri. - LB), and other judgments of the Tribunal in cases of Welspun India Ltd. v. CCE, Daman reported in 2009 (248) E.L.T. 898 (Tri. - Ahmd.), Jindal Polymers v. CCE, Meerut-III reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 657 (Tri. - Del.) and Sudhir Forging v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. 478 (Tri. - Del.), that in view of this, the Commissioner's order confirming the demands of duty and of the amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest and also imposing penalty on the appellant is not sustainable, that the appellant have a strong prima facie case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad (supra) cited by the appellant is not correct. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. So far as the duty demand in respect of clearances to other units of the appellant on stock transfer basis for their captive consumption is concerned, we find that this issue already stand decided in favour of the appellant by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad (supra), which is binding on this Bench. No contrary judgment of any High Court or Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal) and Commissioner v. South India Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal) has held that a job worker who received goods from other manufacturers under Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for manufacture of the goods on job work basis and the goods are cleared under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty in respect of his own inputs received and used by him in the manufacture of the said goods on job work basis. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raigarh v. Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd. (supra) is based on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Sterlite Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
