9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustry and M/s.Kalawati Fabrics are the respondents, vide Final Order No.58544-58562/2013-SM(BR) dated 09.12.2013 by which all the appeal filed by the Revenue including the present appeal were dismissed. However subsequently the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana filed an ROM application No.51432/2014 in respect of this appeal on the ground that this appeal filed by the Revenue where M/s. Happy Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Unit II) is the respondent, was wrongly tagged with the other appeals No.E/597-615/2006 as the issue involved in this case regarding valuation of the goods cleared to another unit of the same appellant company whether it is to be determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules or otherwise, is totally different from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se forgings the duty should have been paid on the value determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules i.e. on the basis of 110% of the cost of production. It is on this basis that the duty demand of Rs. 11,50,747/- and 3,23,863/- for the period from 01.01.2004 to 30th September, 2004 were confirmed alongwith interest under section 11AB against the respondent by 2 separate orders passed by the Joint Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner. The Original adjudicating also imposed penalties of same amount on them. On appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders of the Original Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal set aside the orders of the Original Adjudicating Authority hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered as sale, the valuation of such transfers has to be determined on the basis of 115%/110% of the cost of production in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules and in this regard the Tribunal relied upon the CBEC Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2002. Shri Khanna, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 7. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of respondent by Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs.Commissioenr of C. Ex., Raigad reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri. LB) wherein the Larger Bench has held that when an assessee besides selling the goods manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
