2024 (6) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Short payment of duty - clearance of pig iron and concast billets and ingot and concast billets to sister units, without ascertaining the correct assessable value thereof as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules - Contravention of provisions of Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - demand of differential duty with penalty - HELD THAT - Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR-I 2005 (3) TMI 186 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , wherein this Tribunal has observed ' the appellant has correctly paid the duty on the goods in question, which has been captively consumed by the sister unit for manufacturing of excisable goods in terms of CBEC Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003. On merit, the appellant has rightly paid the duty as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.' As the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of NALCO, the appellant has correctly paid the duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules as per CAS-4. Therefore, no differential duty is payable by the appellant. Penalty - HELD THAT - As there is no demand against the appellant, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against impugned order demanding differential duty u/r 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

Facts and Decision:
- Appellant, an integrated steel plant, appealed against demand for differential duty for clearing goods to sister units without correct assessable value determination.
- Appellant cited precedent where Tribunal held duty payable u/s Rule 8, not Rule 4.
- Revenue supported impugned order.
- Tribunal referred to Circular No.692/8/2003-CX, stating cost of production for captively consumed goods must follow CAS-4.
- Tribunal noted earlier order affirming duty payment correctness as per CAS-4.
- Tribunal distinguished Ispat Industries case, holding Rule 4 not applicable for captive consumption.
- Tribunal held appellant correctly paid duty as per CAS-4, no differential duty payable.
- No penalty imposed due to no demand against appellant.
- Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed with consequential relief.

Conclusion: Tribunal held appellant correctly paid duty as per CAS-4, no differential duty payable, and no penalty imposed due to absence of demand. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.