Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., Unit II Puducherry Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 26 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 21-2-2019
Appeal No. E/40098/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40374/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri K.S. Jain, Managing Director For the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Diesel Generating sets. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that while appellants were clearing their final products, they also cleared such excisable goods manufactured by them to their sister units, where the goods were consumed in the manufacture of final products. It also appeared that in respect of such goods cleared by them, they had not determined the value in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Va
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ontravention of the Rules cited above. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order No.150/2017 dt. 20.09.2017setaside penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs however did not interfere with the remaining portion of the order of original authority. Aggrieved appellants are in appeal before this forum.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Shri K.S. Jain, their Managing Director submitted that the issue is revenue-neutral since whatever the duty was paid by the appellant would have been taken as credit by their other unit. He also submits that demand is time-barred for the reason that the issue was under correspondence between the jurisdictional Range Officer and the appellants from 08.03.2004 and they had time and again clarified that they are not required to produce the CA-4 certificate.
3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri S. Govindarajan submits that for all clearances to their sister unit appellants were required to clear the goods at 115% / 110% of the cos
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the assessable value as 115% / 110% of such cost, as the case may be, to demand any duty liability. Instead, a very discernible shortcut, not supported by any provision of law, was adopted, namely, adding 15% to their invoice prices.
5.2 We find merit in the contention of the appellants that this issue in any case is revenue-neutral. That averment is supported by a slew of case laws / decisions of higher appellate forum. This very Bench in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs CCE Puducherry 2018 (360) ELT 1016 (Tri.-Chennai) has held as under :
“5. On considering the fact that the goods are cleared to the sister unit and also the fact that the appellant is eligible for credit on the duty paid, the entire exercise is a revenue neutral situation as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =