9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculate the excise duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/595/08, E/CO/111/08-MUM - A/90349-90350/17/EB - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. N. N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent ( A. R. ) for the Appellants Shri. V. R. Inamdar, Sr. Manager for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The issue involved is whether valuation of removal of input as such to sister unit should attract payment of duty equal to Cenvat credit availed thereon or under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, during the period 1-4-2001 to 31-12-2003 in terms of Rule 57AB(1)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. 2. Shri. N.N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Raigad Vs Ispat Metallics Industries Ltd [2016(335)ELT 577(S.C.)] wherein identical issue was dealt with and it was held that post removal expenses in respect of removal of input as such cannot be added to calculate the excise duty. He further submits that extra amount charged by the respondent to their sister unit is only on account of freight, loading and unloading and octoroi which is otherwise not includible in the assessable value even under Section 4. 4. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that issue and facts of the present case is squarely covered by the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Ispat Metallics Industreis ltd(supra) wherein Hon ble Court as passed follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the supplier of the said pellets. This is a pure finding of fact and Shri Radhakrishnan has not been able to dislodge this finding of fact. This being the case, the application of the circular of 1-7-2002 becomes important. Paragraph 14 of the said circular reads as under :- 14 How will valuation be done when inputs or capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory, under the erstwhile sub rule (1C) of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 or 2002? Where inputs or capital goods, on which credit has been taken, are removed as such on sale, there should be no problem in ascertaining the Transaction value b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside and have not been produced or manufactured in his factory. Recourse will, therefore, have to be taken to the residuary Rule 11 of the valuation rules and the value determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the valuation rules and sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act. In that case it would be reasonable to adopt the value shown in the invoice on the basis of which CENVAT credit was taken by the assessee in the first place. In respect of capital goods adequate depreciation may be given as per the rates fixed in letter F. No. 495/16/93-Cus.VI, dated 26-5-1993, issued on the Customs side. 11. A reading of this circular makes it clear that a distinction is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
