TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position and to decide the issue accordingly. Since Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the law declared by the Larger Bench [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], we deem it fit to impose an exemplary cost of ₹ 2500/- for burdening the appellant for unnecessary litigation costs, for burdening the Tribunal as also for showing scant respect for the law declared by the higher authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee. - 52053/2014 - Final Order No. A/54637/2014-EX(BR) - Dated:- 21-11-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-LB)]. It is seen that attention of the adjudicating authority was also drawn to the other subsequent decisions of the Tribunal, following the Larger Bench decision. The appellants also pleaded that in case the differential duty is required to be paid by them, the same would be available as credit to their sister concern who is entitled to use the same for payment of duty on their final product. As such, the entire situation is revenue neutral. 5. It is seen that though the Commissioner has noted down all the relevant relied upon decisions, as also the appellants submissions but in the impugned order he has nowhere dealt with the same. The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal clarifying the law on the subject stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same assessable value, the provisions of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules cannot be invoked in respect of clearances to sister concern. Though the appellant had taken a categorical stand to that effect, the said fact does not stand examined by the lower authorities. For the said limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining the said factual position and to decide the issue accordingly. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. 8. At this stage, we take note of the Tribunal s order in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak - 2014-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-Del) = 2015 (37) S.T.R. 364 (Tri.-Del.) and reproduce the relevant paragraphs for read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
