2018 (9) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - appellants were supplying this Acid Slurry to their sister unit for captive consumption - case of the Revenue is that the appellant is clearing the Acid Slurry to their sister unit, therefore, the valuation is to be arrived in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 - Demand of Differential Duty - Held that - In appellant s own case for the earlier period, GORAMAL HARIRAM LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA 2013 (3) TMI 550 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , this Tribunal has held that appellant is not required to pay duty under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules 2000 - appellant has not required to pay the duty as demanded in the impugned order. Revenue Neutrality - Held that - The sister unit is entitled to take Cenvat credit. In that circumstances, it is Revenue in neutral situation. Therefore, no duty is payable by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty demand on Acid Slurry supplied to sister unit
- Valuation under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000
- Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision on non-payment of duty
- Entitlement of sister unit to Cenvat credit

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order demanding differential duty on Acid Slurry supplied to their sister unit. The Revenue argued for valuation under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case, it was held that the appellant is not required to pay duty under Rule 8. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was not required to pay the duty demanded.

Regarding the entitlement of the sister unit to Cenvat credit, the Tribunal found that the sister unit could avail of the credit, putting the Revenue in a neutral position. Consequently, no duty was deemed payable by the appellant. As a result of these findings, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to the appellant.