9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Larger Bench of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad [2007 (209) ELT 0185 Tri.-LB].' 1.2 Tribunal as vide Final Order No. A/252/2011/EB/C-II dated 11.03.2011 remanded the matter back to original authority for consideration of the matter on the basis of the cost data submitted by the appellant. 1.3 As per the remand order matter was again considered by the original authority holding as follows: 'In the facts and circumstances of this case, as has been noticed, analyzed, discussed and found upon - i) I determine and confirm the differential payable duty liability of Rs. 1,22,06,690/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Only) under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. It is submitted that the Adjudicating authority followed the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT and after according the opportunity to the assessee to present their case afresh, has confirmed the duty liability of Rs. 1,22,06,690/- along with penalty and interest as applicable. (B) Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the Orderin- Original with the directions to finalise the assessment based on order of the Larger Bench of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2007 (209) ELT 0185 Tri.-LB] when infact, the Adjudicating authority followed the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT given vide order No. A/252/11/EB/C-II dated 11.03.2011 and finalised the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri. - LB]. Tribunal has observed as follows : '(a)Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad 2007 (209) ELT 0185 Tri.-LB after taking into consideration CBEC Circular No. 643/34/2002- CX., dated 1-7-2002 issued under F. No. 6/39/2000-CX 1 had held that: "i) We also agree with the submission of the assessee that even if both the rules, i.e. Rule 4 and Rule 8, were applicable, it would only be logical to read and apply the various rules in the Central Excise Valuation Rules in a sequential manner. Though the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not specifically prescribe such sequential application of various rules, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onveys some other meaning, but when it is read along with Section 14 of the Act, it must be given a meaning which is in accordance with the object of Section 14. The object of Section 14 is 'primary' whereas the conditions in Rule 9 (2) are the accessories. The 'accessory must, therefore, serve the "primary". iv) In view of what we have observed above, we answer the reference in the following terms: (a) The provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will 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 & not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
