9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant-Assessee under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the CE Act") was admitted on 16th February 2015 on the following questions of law:- "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in lieu thereof, having regard to the undisputed position that the goods were not available for confiscation and not following the binding judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Finesse Creative Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) - 2009 (248) ELT 122 (Bom.); 2010 (258) ELT 197 (Bom.) and Order dated 22.9.2009 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Rishi Ship Breakers in Customs Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner of determination of value of wire rods cleared to Borivali factory was referred; (v) the entire demand is revenue neutral as credit is available to the recipient Borivali factory and recipient factory has paid much more duty in cash? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the demand when admittedly the entire exercise was revenue neutral as duty paid by the Appellant's Tarapur factory on wire rods transported to Borivali factory was available as credit to Borivali factory and Borivali factory had paid substantial duty in cash (i.e. Rs. 94.52 crore) far in excess of differential duty demand (i.e. Rs. 8.6 crores) and not following the binding precedents of the Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction following the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in identical contextual setting, in the case of (i) Union Carbide India Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (158) ELT 15 (SC) (ii) HBL Aircraft Batteries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2004 (167) ELT 483 (SC) and (iii) Hindustan Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1989 (43) ELT 165 (SC), specifically holding that the word 'cost' has definite legal connotation and it is used in contradistinction to the word 'value' and that there is a clear distinction between the words 'value' and 'cost'? (g) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming penalty under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1985 (for short "the CETA". The Appellant-Assessee received inputs that is billets, from their Jamshedpur unit on payment of duty on the value determined at 115% / 110% of cost of production in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The duty paid on the billets was taken as credit by the Appellant-Assessee. The Appellant manufactured wire rods and stock transferred the same to their Borivali unit on payment of duty. In arriving at the value of wire rods manufactured from billets, the issue arises whether the cost of input that is billets in arriving at the value of wire rods should be cost of actual cost of production of billets or 115% / 110% of the cost of production of the billets. 5. The Respondent-Revenue issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the present appeal being admitted by this Court. 8. It is on this backdrop that the present appeal is heard by the Court by reframing the substantial question of law which reads as under:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22nd March 2013, passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on account of the fact that the impugned decision has been subsequently overruled by a larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd.?" 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the impugned order as also the record. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Assessee submitted that since the impugned order of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
