TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Valuation Rules - appeal allowed. CENVAT credit - supplementary invoices - Held that: - he issue of availing credit on supplementary invoices is no more relevant as the differential duty demand against the Raipur Unit is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeals Nos.1060/2011, 1603/2011 and 56238/2013-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos.50810-50812/2017 - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep by Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent. ORDER These are three appeals interconnected to the main central issue about valuation of goods cleared from one unit to another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production. Accordingly, based on the CAS-4 cost certificate submitted by the appellant / assessee, the differential duty was confirmed. However, no penalty was imposed as no justification was found for the same. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the show cause notice has been issued on a wrong understanding of legal provisions to the effect that two manufacturing facilities of the same legal entity are to be considered as related persons. The appellant/assessee is a single legal entity having two facilities at different places. The question of related persons has no application to the facts of the present case. Relating to the transfer of machinery items from one unit to another on payment of duty, ld. Counsel submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rh Unit is hit by bar under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Emphasizing the grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue, ld. AR submitted that when the Commissioner arrived at conclusion to confirm the demand for extended period, rightly invoking the elements required for such confirmation, it is automatic that he should have imposed penalties under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no discretion available to the Adjudicating Authority in this regard. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. On the first issue, regarding liability of the appellant /assessee , Raipur Unit to pay the differential duty of central excise, the goods cleared by them to Raigarh Unit, we note that the simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 547 (Tri.-Kol.) 3. SAIL v. CCE - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 571 (Tri.-Kol.) 4. Gangotri Electrocasting v. CCE - 2013 (293) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.-Kol.). 7. We find the reasoning given by the original authority in his order dated 30-1-2006 regarding the applicability of Rule 8 in the present case of captive consumption is misconceived. Since the transaction value of the excisable goods is available and not all the excisable goods are captively consumed, the provisions of Rule 8 as prevailing during the relevant time will not apply to the assessees. 10. In the present case, we note that all the excisable goods are not cleared for captive use by Raigarh Unit. Admittedly, there are independent sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the differential duty demand against the Raipur Unit is set aside. However, we note that the ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that the duty originally paid by Raipur Unit was passed on by supplementary invoices to Raigarh Unit and the credit was accordingly availed. In this background, the appellant/asssessee is not proceeding further with any relief by way of claiming refund on this favourable order as the supplementary invoices and the credit thereupon have already been availed and settled. The denial of credit to Raigarh unit is on the ground that the differential duty has been paid by Raipur Unit against detection of evasion of duty involving suppression of facts etc. with intent to evade the payment of duty and hence the credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
