TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly transferring the same to their sister units, thus, the cost construction based assessable value adopted by the Revenue is not justified - order are set aside and appeals – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Appeal Nos. 687 & 1544 of 2009-EX[DB] - FO/ 57693-57694 /2013-EX(Br) - Dated:- 5-9-2013 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri G.K. Rawal Shri Rohit Choudhary, Advocates For the Respondent : Ms. Ranjana Jha, Jt. CDR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench) : We dispose of both the appeals as the issue involved is identical. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mild steel billets, blooms, ingots, sponge iron etc. fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... costing of the goods. If the same is rectified in terms of CAS 4, the value of the goods would be less than the value at which the appellant have paid the duty and cleared the goods to their sister unit. The above objection of the appellant was accepted by the Cost Accountant M/s. Rakshit and Associates who revised their report. 3. However, the Revenue issued a show cause notice raising the demand of duty against the appellant. The appellants during the course of adjudication submitted that inasmuch as they were adopting the same assessable value on which the goods were being cleared to independent wholesale buyers, there was no justification for adopting the value based upon the cost construction basis. They also brought it to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Associates was subsequently revised by them, when the power consumption units were intimated to them, the Commissioner has not relied upon the same. Admittedly, when the costing is being done at the behest of the Revenue it is the correct costing which is to be picked up. In any case, we find that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad [ 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri-LB)] wherein it stand held that transfer of part of production to another plant of the same assessee and balance production sold to independent buyers would not attract the provisions of Rule 8 in respect of transferred production. The said Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
