Diamond Cements Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 223 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 2-4-2018
Appeal No. E\/50163\/2018-EX (DB) – Final Order No. 51139\/2018
Central Excise
Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant
\nShri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent
\nPer : V. Padmanabhan
\n1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 257\/2017-18 dated 29\/09\/2017.
\n2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and such cement is mainly cleared on payment of duty on the basis of MRP valuation under Section 4A as also under Section 4 Valuation. The dispute covers the period September, 2011 to August, 2016 in respect of cement which was captively consumed within the factory. The Central Excise duty on the cement captively consumed was paid by the appellant on the basis of the cost of production of such cement an<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n period after 01\/12\/2013, the date of such amendment, the duty paid by the appellant on the basis of the above determination was in order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 07 (209) ELT 185 (Tri. LB). We note the finding of original authority recorded as below: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tification 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 Circular dated 25.11.2013. It was clarified that the new provision was introduced which clearly state their application irrespective of whether the whole or a part of clearances of manufactured goods are covered by the circumstances given in the said rule. The Board further stated that these amendments in the rules addressed the issues clarified already vide Board Circular dated 01.07.2002. In other words, it is apparent that the provisions for application of 110% \/ 115% of cost of production to be adopted for valuation as all along been the same. The Honble Supreme Court in CCE, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) held that a bare reading of Valuation Rules does not give any indication that the adjudicating authority while determining the value for duty of excisable goods had to follow the rules sequentially. The rules only provides for arr<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Diamond Cements Versus CGST C.E & C. C-BhopalCentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 223 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 2-4-2018Appeal No. E\/50163\/2018-EX (DB) – Final Order No. 51139\/2018Central Excise Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the … Continue reading “Diamond Cements Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. With reference to the period prior to 01\/12\/2013 he submitted that the duty should be determined on the same basis as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement V\/s CCE, Indore, Final Order No. 57753-57755\/2017 dated 08\/11\/2017.
\n6. The Ld DR argued that for the period before and after the amendment to Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the demand made is fully justified. He specifically pointed out that determination of value at the rate of 110 per cent of cost of production in terms of Rule 8 cannot be made applicable since the cement in the present case was not used for production or manufacture of other goods within the factory.
\n7. After hearing both sides and perusal of record we find 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<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 10. The assessee in their letter dated 28.05.2011 addressed to the Additional Commissioner as also in a letter dated 07.07.2011 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) Indore clarified that as per the Boards Circular No.634\/34\/2002-CX dated 01.07.2000 and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, they have transferred the goods to their sister concern correctly as per 110% of the cost of production on the basis of CAS-4 Certificate. They have also referred to the case laws in their support. The main point involved in this case is that the party is not transferring on payment of duty the final product from factory to their sister concern and not for sale therefrom. The reason for price difference in case of parts of the final product as explained by the party is that in case of transfer of components, they are not including selling expenses, marketing expenses, distribution expenses etc. which are t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n