9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1026 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of the goods - Clearance of goods to another unit of same appellant - Determination of value u/r 8 - Held that - Since the issue involved in this case stands decided in the respondent s favour by Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and in that judgment the other judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of BOC India Ltd. (2004 (4) TMI 125 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) and Steel Complex Ltd. (2003 (9) TMI 252 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) have also been considered, it is the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal which would be binding on this Bench. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Recalling of Tribunal's final order in connection with an appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Dispute regarding the valuation of goods cleared to another unit of the same company. 3. Duty payment basis for goods cleared to the company's own unit. 4. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding assessable value determination. 5. Interpretation of Central Excise Valuation Rules for captive consumption goods. Issue 1: Recalling of Tribunal's final order The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue which was initially dismissed along with other appeals. Subsequently, a ROM application was filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana, stating that the appeal was wrongly tagged with other appeals and had no connection with them. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's plea to be correct and recalled the final order related to this appeal. The appeal was to be re-heard along with another appeal filed by the Revenue, and the ROM application was allowed. Issue 2: Dispute regarding valuation of goods The respondents, manufacturers of steel forgings, had two units, and the dispute concerned the valuation of goods cleared to Unit-I from Unit-II of the same company. The Department contended that duty should be paid based on the cost of production under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The duty demand and penalties were confirmed against the respondent, which led to appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders of the Original Adjudicating Authority, stating that the assessable value for clearances to the other unit for captive use should be the price at which the goods were sold to independent buyers. Issue 3: Duty payment basis for goods cleared to own unit The Department argued that duty payment for goods cleared to the company's own unit for captive consumption should be based on Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, irrespective of sales to independent buyers. The respondent disagreed, citing judgments and Circulars supporting their position that valuation for such clearances should be based on the price at which goods were sold to independent buyers. Issue 4: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, claiming that the valuation of goods cleared for captive consumption should follow Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, not based on sales to independent buyers. They referenced Tribunal judgments and Circulars to support their argument against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Issue 5: Interpretation of Valuation Rules for captive consumption goods The respondent's counsel argued that the issue had been settled in favor of the respondent by a Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal, which determined that the value of goods cleared for captive consumption should be based on the price at which the same goods were sold to independent buyers. The counsel referenced previous Tribunal judgments that were considered in the Larger Bench decision, supporting the contention that the impugned order was correct. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the binding nature of the Larger Bench judgment in favor of the respondent. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on the precedent set by the Tribunal's decision in the case of valuation for goods cleared for captive consumption.
|
