9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable value has to be arrived at by taking 100% cost of material plus 10% profit margin as per CAS-4 standards. The Department taking the view that the cost profit adopted by them was lower than the actual cost issued Show Cause Notice for the period July 2000 to December 2004 by invoking the extended period provisions. After due process, the demands were confirmed. Being aggrieved the Appellants filed their Appeal before the Tribunal. 2. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/455-457/KOL/2010 dated 29/07/2010 remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. He considered all the issues raised by the Appellant. Before the Denovo Adjudicating Authority, the Appellants submitted that about 90% of goods were being cleared to non-related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is required to be allowed on merits. 4. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 05/08/2005 is time barred. The confirmed demand for the extended period is required to be set aside on account of limitation also. He submits that the issue is that of Revenue neutrality. The Excise Duty paid by the Appellant was being claimed by the receiving sister unit who were converting the materials so received into finished goods and were paying Excise Duty on the finished goods. Therefore, he submits that the Appellant was not in a position to gain any additional benefit by showing any lower assessable value for clearances to their sister unit. He relies on the case law of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, BBSR-II-2023 (5) TMI 720- CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the same has compared to price adopted by them for 3rd parties. Therefore, it meets requirement under Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. Therefore, we hold that on merits, the confirmed demands cannot be sustain and we allow the Appeal on merits. 9. We also see force in the submission of the Appellant that the entire issue is Revenue neutral. Admittedly, the goods were cleared to their sister unit who were using the materials for further manufacturing process and paying the Excise Duty on the finished goods. Therefore, whatever Excise Duty was paid by the Appellant, the same would have been available to the sister unit as Cenvat Credit. In such a case, the Appellant would not be gaining any additional benefit by lowering the assessabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
