TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee or on its behalf. If this conditionality was not satisfied, value necessarily would have to be determined under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules as it existed during the period under dispute - upto 30.11.2013, appellants were required to discharge duty on the impugned clearances only as per erstwhile Rule 4 of the said Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. Penalty - Held that: - there is no bonafide reason for resorting to undervaluation, that appellants instead deliberately suppressed and misstated material facts with intent to evade payment of duty liability - penalties justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/COD/30613 - 30614/2016 &E/30909 - 30910/2016 - Final Order No. A/30543-30544/2017 - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders upheld the original authority s orders. Hence, appellants are before this forum. 2. On the day of hearing, viz., 22.02.2017, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri V. Sankaram, reiterated the grounds of appeal and also filed written submissions. The main contentions of the appellant can be summarized as under:- i) On goods consumed captively, valuation should be reckoned under the parameters of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, which is CAS-4 valuation. ii) In view of clarity brought about vide Notification No. 14/2014-CE(NT) dated 22.11.2013 and Board s Circular No. 975/09/2013-CX dated 25.11.2013, Rule 4 Valuation should be adopted only in respect of goods sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction or manufacture of other articles, the value of such goods that are consumed shall be one hundred and ten percent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. 5.3 What comes to the fore is that notwithstanding the amendment to the said Rule 8 of Valuation Rules w.e.f. 01.12.2013, there has been no change in the basic premise and purpose of the Rule, namely, to lay down the method of valuation of excisable goods which are not sold by the assessee but used for consumption by him or on his behalf (job worker), in the production or manufacture of other articles (emphasis added). Only difference is that prior to 01.12.2013, Rule 8 would be applicable only if whole of the excisable goods manufactured are not sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority, which is reproduced as under:- 7. From the above, it is clearly evident that only when the entire production of the goods are not sold and used for self or captive consumption, the central excise duty is leviable in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and when part production is used for self or captive consumption, the duty is required to be paid in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. This fact is confirmed by the apex court in the case of Steel Complex Ltd. - 2015 (321) ELT A138 (S.C.) wherein it is held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, which was prevailing at that time, will have no application in the present case, where the goods are on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant in respect of penalty also do not hold much water. Appellants were very much working under self-assessment procedure wherein considerable autonomy and trust repost on them. It is not that the appellants are a small scale unit with relatively lesser access to information concerning changes in law and procedure and runs three units. On the other hand even the duty liabilities stacked up against them for the impugned period is upwards of ₹ 39.00 lakhs. They cannot claim ignorance of law and procedure. Lower authority has correctly concluded that there is no bonafide reason for resorting to undervaluation, that appellants instead deliberately suppressed and misstated material facts with intent to evade payment of duty liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
