TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption shall not apply. On the scrutiny of the impugned order we find that though the adjudicating authority has given general remark about the captive consumption but the Notification No. 67/95-CE was neither explicitly mentioned nor it s conditions were verified. Time Limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- As regards the valuation of the goods it is found that adjudicating authority has not followed the cost accounting standard as per the CAS-4 to arrive at the value of the goods for discharging Excise Duty in terms of Rule 8 for captive consumption. Therefore this aspect needs to be reconsidered. The entire matter on all the issues need to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority afresh. The matter re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty. 2.1. He submits that the said transaction is clearly exempted under Notification No. 67/95 - CE dated 16.03.1995. Therefore, there cannot be demand of duty on the manufacture and use of crane within the factory of the production. 2.2. He further submits that even the cost of manufacture of crane is on hypothetical basis without establishing that the said goods were used in the manufacturing of crane on that count also demand is not sustainable. 2.3. He also submits that the entire demand is time barred as the entire case is arising on scrutiny of the records of the appellant. Therefore, there was no intention to evade payment of duty. He also refers to the statement of Shri Jignesh Shah Partner to submit that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40) ELT 0276 (SC) Cosmic Dye Chemical Reported In 1995 (75) ELT 721(SC) 2.4. He further submits that charge of clandestine removal is not established against the appellant for the reason that the goods manufactured by the appellant was not removed from the factory but it was always available in the factory . In support he placed reliance on the following Judgments :- Hindustan Machines Vs CCE, Delhi [2013(294) ELT 43] Mahesh Bali Vs CCE, Pune [2012(286) ELT 375] Raj Ratan Ind Ltd., Vs CCE, Kanpur reported in 2013(298) ELT 111 (Tri.Del) DP Ind Vs CCE reported in 2007 (218) ELT 242 and Durga Trading Co Vs CCE reported in 2002 (148) ELT 967. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna v. Universal Polyethylene Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econsidered in detail. As regards the valuation of the goods we find that adjudicating authority has not followed the cost accounting standard as per the CAS-4 to arrive at the value of the goods for discharging Excise Duty in terms of Rule 8 for captive consumption. Therefore this aspect needs to be reconsidered. In view of our above observation we are of the opinion that, the entire matter on all the issues need to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority afresh. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order keeping in view our above observation. However, all the issues are kept open. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
