2018 (4) TMI 223 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Valuation – Cement – captive consumption – Department was of the view that the duty was required to be paid on such captively consumed goods on the basis of transaction value of cement cleared to independent buyers in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act – Held that: – Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules has been amended w.e.f. 1/12/2013. After such amendment the Rule provides for determination of value of captively consumed goods, on the basis of 110 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods – demand set aside.
–
Demand for the period prior to 1/12/2013 – Held that: – similar issue for period prior to 1/12/2013 has come up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore V/s Surya Roshni Ltd [2016 (10) TMI 1137 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI] in which Tribunal has held that the treatment for the period prior to amendment to Rule 8 is to be the same as for the treatment after such amendment – demand set aside.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tively consumed goods on the basis of transaction value of cement cleared to independent buyers in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, differential duty of ₹ 46,85,281/- was demanded along with interest and penalties. The same stand confirmed by both the authorities below and aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed. 3. With the above background we heard Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.R. Sharma, Ld. DR for the Revenue. 4. It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was amended w.e.f 1/12/2013 and after such amendment the Rule has specifically provided for determination of value of goods captively consumed on the basis of 110 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. Accordingly, he argued that for the period after 01/12/2013, the date of such amendment, the duty paid by the appellant on the basis of the above determ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ure of such goods. Hence for the period after such amendment we find no infirmity in the duty paid by the appellant and hence differential duty demanded for the period w.e.f. 01/12/2013 is set aside. 8. Now we turn to the differential duty demanded for the period prior to 1/12/2013. 9. We note that similar issue for period prior to 1/12/2013 has come up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore V/s Surya Roshni Ltd 2016-TIOL-3500-CSTAT-Del in which Tribunal observed as under:- 2. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. As mentioned above, the only point for decision is the valuation of product cleared by the respondent-assessee to their sister unit. Admittedly, in the present case, the goods were sold to independent buyers as well as cleared to sister unit. The Revenue relied on the decision of Tribunal in Ispat Industries vs. CCE, Raigad – 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri. LB). We note the finding of original authority recorded as below: 10. The assessee in their letter d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ara appears not to be squarely applicable in this case as i the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. the issue of valuation decided by the Honble Apex Court relates to value at the time of import of the goods and not of clearance of indigenously manufactured goods. Similarly, Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. decided the issue relating to transfer of part of final product to sister concern and balance to independent buyers and not the parts & components of the final products as involved in the present case. Similarly, in the case of M/s Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. the Honble CESTAT decided transfer of goods to certain brands to depot and sale therefrom and rest through unrelated buyers, therefore, valuation is to be determined by the best judgment. 3. We note that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 were substituted vide Notification No. 14/2013-CE (NT) dated 22.11.2013. The scope of the new Rule vis-vis the old rule was explained in the Board Ci
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =