9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty during the period January, 2000 to December, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of various steel products, namely, billets, rounds, HT Bars, blooms, etc. to its independent customers as well as cleared the same to its job workers. The said goods were cleared by the appellant to the job-workers upon payment of excise duty on value determined as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2.1 The job-workers used the said goods for further manufacturing, by undertaking the processes of say-cutting, rolling, reeling, colour coding, etc. and supplied the job-worked goods back to the appellant on payment of duty. 2.2 Based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2.8 Hence this appeal. 3. The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand of duty confirmed is a revenue neutral situation, as there is no demand of duty, therefore, no interest is payable by the appellant. To support his contention, he relied on the following decisions : (1) CCE, Pune Vs. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.); (2) CCE & C. Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos Abs Ltd. 2010 (254) E.L.T. 628 (Guj.), affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2011 (267) E.L.T. A155 (S.C) (3) Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II - 2023-TIOL-403-CESTAT-KOL. (4) M/S. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur - 2023 (6) TMI 1102 - CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and the same is entitled as cenvat credit to the appellants themselves. 10. As it is a revenue neutral situation, we hold that no interest is payable by the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Jai Balaji Industries Limited (supra) wherein it has been held as under : "15. As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & C, Vadodara-II v. Indeos Abs Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], in case the goods were cleared to their own sister concern, which is availing benefit of the Modvat Credit, hence the entire exercise is revenue neutral. Although the appellant paid differential duty later on, but same was available as Cenvat Credit to their sister unit is a revenue neutral situation, if appellant would have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 to December, 2004, to demand of duty on the ground that the assessable value of the goods cleared to job workers ought to be computed in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 r/w Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 13.1 The matter was adjudicated vide Order dated 31.03.2006 and the demand of duty was confirmed to the tune of Rs.15,65,36,574/-. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order dated 11.06.2007, held that the appeal filed by the appellant for recovery of demand of duty was dismissed as non-maintainable. 13.2 Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the said amount confirmed, the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same affected by partly adjusting against the rebate claim of the Appellant and partly getting the Appellant to pay through its PLA, which was paid under protest. Thus, the resolution suggested by COD was effectively not agreed by the department as the COD granted permission to litigate demand for the immediately succeeding period on the identical issue, which has been decided in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, having suffered the duty and not being able to neutralize its incidence in the present period, even by passing on the same to the job-workers, the Appellant filed refund claim on 28.03.2008 to the department for refund of such erroneously recovered excise duty. 14.2 He further submits that the said refund claims have been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this Tribunal vide Order No. S -519/A-1148/Kol/2007 dated 11.06.2007 passed the following orders : On going through the said order of the Tribunal, in Paragraph (3) states that - " 3. From the above clearance given by COD, it is seen that the appellants have been allowed to pursue their appeal in respect of penalty only. As such, the appeal filed by them in regard to duty demand is dismissed as non-maintainable." 17. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant in regard to duty of demand is dismissed as not maintainable by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2007 and the said part of the order of this Tribunal was never challenged by the appellant. 18. In that circumstances, the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 31.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
