9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "HR Coils"; they sell the coils to related as well as unrelated parties. On conduct of an audit of the appellants, Revenue came to the conclusion that the appellant is clearing part of the final goods to their sister concerns and therefore, the valuation of the goods removed to the sister concerns should be, on the basis of cost plus 10%,in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. A show-cause notice dated 13.09.2010 demanding duty of Rs.43,52,529/- along with penalty and interest was issued to the appellants; the show-cause notice was adjudicated vide OIO dated 23.09.2011 wherein duty of Rs.29,17,703/- was confirmed under the extended period along with equal penalty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cost) has seriously erred in including the job charges earned by them in respect of jobwork performed by them to other manufacturers; if the said job charges are deducted, the prices at which HR Coils are cleared to their sister concerns are comparable to or more than the value indicated in the report and therefore, there was no scope for demand of differential duty. He submits alsothat the entire issue is revenue neutral as their sister concern would any way be eligible to avail CENVAT credit even if duty paid is at a higher price. He relies on the following cases: Special Steel Ltd.- 2015 (329) ELT 449 (Tri. Mumbai) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (334) ELT A123 (SC). Akash Optifibre Ltd.- 2010 (261) ELT 404 (Tri. Del.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the report of the Deputy Director (Cost) was not provided to the appellants; the working papers on the basis of which the Deputy Director (Cost) has arrived at the figures are also not given; the same are not even explained in the show-cause notice. We find that this is a serious case of violation of principles of natural justice as the appellants have been denied an opportunity to analyse or counter the findings of the Deputy Director (Cost). 7. Further, ongoing through the show-cause notice, we find that no reasonable justification has been given to invoke the Valuation Rules except for making a bland averment that the appellants are clearing goods to their sister concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revised Guidance Note on Cost Accounting Standard on cost of production for captive consumption (CAS-4) job charges are direct expenses to be included in the calculation of the assessable value. We find that there is no dispute on the addition of job charges as far as they relate to the job charges incurred in the manufacture of the goods in question. The appellant submits that these are charges earned by them while performing job work for other manufacturers. We fail to understand as to how the expenditure or income unrelated to the goods in question can be included or subtracted for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. As the report of the Deputy Director (Cost) was not made available, it cannot be understood as to how the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
