TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T credit to the recipient units. As per the submission of Learned Counsel the recipient units have paid ₹ 75.49 crores and ₹ 16.41 crores duty from PLA respectively. In such case the entire exercise of payment of duty and availment of credit is revenue neutral - even though duty is payable and the recipient unit is part of the same entity and is eligible for MODVAT/CENVAT credit paying duty from PLA also then it is a revenue neutral exercise. For this reason demand of duty cannot be recovered - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1168 & 1169/06-Mum - A/85373-85374/17/EB - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate, for Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at 2016 (335) ELT 382 (T) . He further submits that even as per CAS-4, Head Office admin expenses being not relatable to production activity are not includible in the cost of production. As regard R D expenses, he submits that they have included R D expenses in the cost of production to the extent the same are relating to the products manufactured and cleared to other units. He submits that the R D expenses related to the products other than the product manufactured by the appellant is not required to be included in the assessable value. He also submits that as per CAS-4, R D expenses incurred for development improvement of the process of the existing product alone is includible in the cost of production. Therefore the R D expenses r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irlon Ltd Vs CCE - [2015 (320) ELT 22 (SC)] (v) STI Industries Vs CCE - [2015 (327) ELT 514 (T)] (vi) CCE, C ST Vs Tarapur Grease India Pvt Ltd - [2016 (334) ELT 416 (Bom.)] He further submits, in the above judgments, it was also held that in case there is revenue neutrality suppression of fact with intent to evade the duty does not exist, therefore the longer period of demand is not invocable. 3. Shri V K Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that there is no dispute that the recipient units are the appellant s own units. Therefore if there is any differential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions. The Tribunal found that once the inputs have been delivered only at the factories of the assessees from the associate companies, then no loss occurs to revenue. The assessees would derive no benefit by not reversing Cenvat credit on the inputs, when sister concerns are also eligible to take Cenvat credit. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence particularly on the diversion of these inputs, the Tribunal applied the doctrine or principle of revenue neutrality. We do not see how the same was inapplicable in the admitted facts and circumstances. 5. Even the order-in-original and the paragraph which was relied upon by Mr. Oak does not indicate that any other material or evidence was placed. The Tribunal has taken t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to the period from 1-7-2000. Nobody has claimed that a similar dispute between the assessee and the Revenue for any other period prior to 1-7-2000 is upcoming. Apparently the issue has no recurring effect and is only of academic interest. It is not in dispute that any amount of duty paid by the assessee will be available as Cenvat credit, without abatement, to their sister units, in which event a revenue neutral situation would emerge it. In the case of Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , the Hon ble Supreme Court considered a similar situation and disposed of the case, leaving a question of law open. In the case of India Pistons Ltd. (supra) , similar course of action was taken by the Tribunal. In the instant case, questions of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand chart which is an annexure to the SCN. As we find no allegations for demand has been stated either in the show cause notice nor there are any reasoning in the impugned orders for confirmation of such demand, we are of the considered view that such demand cannot be confirmed as it is not in accordance with law. As regard plea of revenue neutrality raised by the ld. Counsel, we find strong force in the contentions as there is no dispute that clearances were made by M/s. STI to their own DTA unit and the credit of SAD and CVD was available to the DTA Unit, hence the entire issue is revenue neutral. In such case it cannot be said that there has been intentional evasion of payment of duty by the appellant-assessee. We find that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
