9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 776 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at 110% of the cost of production or under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at the value at which same goods are cleared to independent buyers? - goods cleared to sister unit for captive consumption - period prior to December 2013 - revenue neutrality - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - This appeal can be disposed of on limitation itself without going into the merits of the case. It is found that as per the department the issue on merit is that the appellant was supposed to pay the excise duty on the goods cleared from their clinker unit to the grinding unit not on the cost construction method i.e. 110% of cost of manufacturing but on the transaction value of the same goods sold to the independent buyers - since there is no gain or loss to the appellant, the situation is revenue neutral, hence, malafide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, though during the relevant period i.e. March, 2011 to November,2013 both the units i.e. clinker and grinding unit were separately registered but from May, 2016 both the clinker unit and grinding unit have been granted common Central Excise registration and separate registration of clinker unit was surrendered. This shows that practically both units are one of the same. This fact reinforces the claim of the appellant that the situation is revenue neutral. On the identical issue this CESTAT in the case of MAX SPECIALITY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S.T., LUDHIANA 2019 (9) TMI 1542 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH has set aside the demand on the grounds of Revenue neutrality. This is a clear case of revenue neutrality, therefore, suppression of facts or any malafide intention with intent to evade the payment of duty cannot be attributed to the appellant, consequently the demand is not sustainable on limitation. Moreover, the period involved is March, 2011 to November,2013 for which the show cause notice was issued on 18.03.2016, thus, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. On the identical issue on merit the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. MONSANTO MANUFACTURER PVT. LTD. 2014 (4) TMI 505 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that once the court has come to the conclusion that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked there would be no occasion to enquire merit of the issue. Therefore, as per the discussion made herein above, the entire demand is clearly time bar, therefore, we need not to address the issue on merit i.e. manner of valuation of goods in question. Therefore, the entire demand is hit by limitation, hence, not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Determination of assessable value for excise duty on goods cleared to sister unit for captive consumption. 2. Sustainability of demand of duty in a revenue-neutral situation. 3. Invocation of extended period of limitation. Issue 1 - Determination of assessable value: The appellant argued that the demand for excise duty on goods cleared to their grinding unit should not be based on the cost of production method but on the transaction value of goods sold to independent buyers, citing revenue neutrality. They contended that any duty paid on the clinker was available as cenvat credit to the clinker unit, making the situation revenue neutral. The appellant also highlighted that the demand was time-barred as the entire period in question was beyond the normal period of limitation, supported by regular filing of returns and audits conducted without any objections raised on valuation methods. Issue 2 - Sustainability of demand in revenue-neutral situation: The Tribunal found that the appellant's clinker and grinding units were practically one entity, granted common registration in 2016, reinforcing the claim of revenue neutrality. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal emphasized that no malafide intention could be attributed to the appellant in a revenue-neutral scenario. The demand for duty was set aside on grounds of revenue neutrality, with the period of demand falling beyond the normal limitation period. Issue 3 - Invocation of extended period of limitation: The Tribunal referred to relevant circulars and judgments to support the appellant's valuation method based on cost of production for captive consumption. It was noted that the appellant had acted in accordance with applicable circulars, and the demand was deemed time-barred due to the extended period falling outside the normal limitation period. Consequently, the demand was held to be not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The impugned order was set aside on the ground of limitation, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
