TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pat Industries Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], the Larger Bench of Tribunal has expressed the view that in cases where a part of the goods manufactured is also sold to independent buyers in addition to clearance to sister concern, the valuation can be done on the basis of value of clearance made to independent buyers. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has expressed the view that in such cases, there will be no need to adopt the valuation as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and Rule 4 ibid, will apply in such cases. Demand set aside - the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Demand of differential duty - period 2003-04 - Held that:- Since the clearance have been made from Unit I to Unit II, both belonging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.09.2008 was issued proposing the demand of differential duty worked out on the basis of cost of production + 115%/110% in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. The adjudicating authority decided the matter by issue of the impugned order, in which he dropped the demand for Central Excise duty for the period 2004 to 2008. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Raigad reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB). Since a part of the production of Unit I has been cleared to independent buyers, the adjudicating authority held that such value can be adopted and there is no need for valuation of goods cleared to Unit II in terms of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in various cases has repeatedly held that in case of revenue neutrality, the demand for differential duty as well as penalty is not justified. He also relied upon several case laws including that of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry reported in 2018 (360) ELT 1016 (Tri.-Chennai). He added that the above decision has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case as reported in 2018 (360) ELT A301 (S.C.). 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. The dispute is regarding valuation of goods cleared by the appellants to their Unit II which is situated in adjacent premises of Unit I. During the period under dispute i.e. 2003-04 to 2007-08, Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the stand taken by the adjudicating authority. Hence, we uphold dropping the demand for the period 2004-2008. 12. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
