9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the payment received from L&T in the form of HR coil and other items. In the statement of the appellant, excise duty is not reflected because the excise duty is not paid by the appellant. In the case of L&T these are figuring because probably this was taken into account at the time of agreement for calculating the bill amount payable but in fact it was not paid or was paid. However when we summed up the figures, according to L&T record the net amount payable is ₹ 34.53 crore whereas according to the appellants net amount receivable is ₹ 35.03 crore. The above analysis would show that according to the bills preferred by both the sides, the amount payable to which both sides agree is only about ₹ 34.53 crore which is actually less than what they have already received. Whereas it is the department’s claim that they have received more than ₹ 11.26 crore as excise duty and this figure is nowhere getting reflected in both. The above analysis would show that prima facie we are not in a position to appreciate the fact that the appellants have received the amount as excise duty and is recoverable as per the provisions of Central Excise law. Therefore appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 15,000/- to PSL and thus the difference in price of HR Coils has resulted in undervaluation of pipes sold by PSL to L T; that this difference amount is an additional consideration in the hands of PSL under Rule 6 of Valuation Rules. 31-3-2005 Order-in-Original No. 60/2004-05, dated 31-3-2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam confirming the above demand. 16-1-2006 Order-in-Appeal No. 20/2006-C.E., dated 16-1-2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam dismissing appeal filed by PSL against Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2005. 22-9-2006 CESTAT s Final Order No. 1551/2006, dated 22-9-2006 [reported as PSL Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Visakhapatnam - 2007 (78) RLT 286)] allowing appeal of PSL by holding that the contract price has to be accepted by relying on the case of HBL Aircraft Batteries v. CC reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.). Therefore, it has been concluded that the differential value of HR Coils is not liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ledger account of L T in the books of PSL. 3. Order-in- Original No. 10/2011, dated 28-2-2011 Principle of res judicata not applicable as appellants have not appealed against order-in-original No. 34/2005, dated 20-3-2006. Demand of ₹ 3,18,68,213/- and ₹ 2,07,01,159/- not mutually exclusive as it is a case of job work and therefore formula prescribed under Ujagar Prints to be applied. Manufacture of pipes undertaken on job work basis and there is no sale of pipes. Consideration received for laying and jointing includable in assessable value as it is in connection with or by reason of pipes being sold by the appellants. Transportation charges to be included in assessable value as place of removal is the site and not the factory gate. Other elements such as notional interest for interest free advances to be included in assessable value as they have nexus with cost of production. ₹ 16,51,92,217/- Pipes manufactured on job work basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as well as the consolidated account maintained by L T are based on records only and the bill raised as per L T account has been seen by both the sides. Even 3 to 4 bills were referred to, in our opinion it would be sufficient if we consider the reply relating to paragraphs U1 to U3 of the show cause notice. We consider it appropriate that the same have to be reproduced : (III) DEMAND OF ₹ 11.26,22,845 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. Show cause notice had erred in ignoring the deductions/recoveries portion. U.1 We have raised periodical running bills on L T in relation to the Work Order dated 10-7-2003. The gross amount of bill raised by us was in accordance with the Work Order dated 10-7-2003 read with subsequent exemption which cam into play w.e.f. 20-2-2004. In other words, we did not raise bill towards excise duty on pipes once exemption was claimed on pipes cleared 20-2-2004 onwards. Certain deductions are made from the gross amount of bill raised by us on account of monies already received or monies due by us to L T. These deductions are in the nature of set-offs. Summary of the 8 running bills and one bill for additional scope of work read with ledger for L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to laying contractor on behalf of PSL 5,75,93,375 b3 Amount payable to L T on account of purchase of HR coil by PSL 109,30,44,740 b4 HR Coil not returned by PSL 17,76,341 b5 Others (Repair of T-joints guniting material works) 32,80,751 b6 Mobilization advance 2,70,00,001 b7 Exemption of Excise Duty on HR Coil 3,48,43,888 b8 Excise Duty on guniting 1,02,26,968 Total deductions/recoveries 124,41,36,947 C Net receivable 34,53,84,608 D Net paid 34,83,28,765 E Excess paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g system is based on quantity. Nevertheless when we see, both the statements referred to by us and reproduced as in the show cause notice, according to L T, the gross amount is ₹ 158.95 crore and deductions/recoveries is ₹ 124.41 crore. When we look at the categories of deductions/recoveries, we see that these are the amounts which are actually paid by L T in some other form to the appellant and not in the form of cash. Similarly in the case of bills raised by the appellant also the amount of ₹ 154 crore is the payment received from L T in the form of HR coil and other items. In the statement of the appellant, excise duty is not reflected because the excise duty is not paid by the appellant. In the case of L T these are figuring because probably this was taken into account at the time of agreement for calculating the bill amount payable but in fact it was not paid or was paid. However when we summed up the figures, according to L T record the net amount payable is ₹ 34.53 crore whereas according to the appellants net amount receivable is ₹ 35.03 crore. The above analysis would show that according to the bills preferred by both the sides, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
