TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether any change in the definition of Industrial Consumer under Rule 3 of Legal Metrology (PC) Rules, 2011 as came into effect from 01.04.2011 has caused any change as far as the duty liability of appellant herein is concerned. No doubt due to this change, the appellant can be categorised industrial consumer but still he is consumer of such product as has been manufactured by him, i.e. the appellant is using the cement manufactured by him but for the construction of his own premises. This admitted fact is sufficient to hold that Valuation Rules, 2008 shall not be applicable to the appellant s case. It becomes clear that the appellant still fall under the said Rule if and only if manufactured cement is used by him for manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of MRP and prevailing local market rate was higher than the valuation in terms of Rule 8, the appellant filed refund claim dated 30.4.2012 for an amount of ₹ 6,54,220/-. However, vide Show cause notice No. 4256 dated 27.7.2012, the refund claim was proposed to be rejected on the ground that Rule 8 of Valuation Rules is not applicable on such case of own consumption of the manufactured final product, where such consumption is for further production. The said rejection was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 49/2018-19 dated 28.12.2018. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide Order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. It is submitted by Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observe and held as follows: The appellant was discharging his tax liability on the basis of local prevalent market rate till 31.3.2011 and stopped the said practice with effect from 01.04.2011, rather has prayed for the refund of the amount as is higher if paid on the basis of local prevalent market rate instead of being paid under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. The moot controversy to be adjudicated in the facts and circumstances is as to whether any change in the definition of Industrial Consumer under Rule 3 of Legal Metrology (PC) Rules, 2011 as came into effect from 01.04.2011 has caused any change as far as the duty liability of appellant herein is concerned. The definition of Industrial consumer prior to 01.04.2011 is as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. Though the appellant has relied upon the Circular of 01.07.2002, but perusal of the entry No. 5 thereof shows that same is for arriving at the valuation cost of captive consumption. The entry reads as follows: 5. How will valuation be done in cases of captive consumption (i.e. consumed within the same factory) including transfer to a sister unit or another factory of the same company /firm for further use in the manufacture of goods ? For captive consumption in one s own factory, valuation would be done as per rule 8 of the Valuation Rules i.e. the assessable value will be 115% of the cost of production of the goods. If the same good are partly sold by the assessee and the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
