9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation of the cars, which are not sold by them. The appellant have paid Central Excise duty on such car carriers as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2004 on the basis of value provided by Cost Accountant as per the requirement of CAS 4 certificate. The Revenue has undertaken Audit of the appellant's manufacturing premise for the period covering April 2008 to November, 2010. The Revenue has entertained a doubt with regard to the valuation adopted by the appellant for payment of Central Excise duty. It has been contended by the Revenue that the cost of manufactured car carriers given by the Cost Accountant in their CAS 4 certificate is less than the value adopted by the Revenue for the previous period i.e. 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the Revenue keeping in mind the Cost Inflation Index. 4. Accordingly, the assessable value of per car carrier body was worked out and appropriate Central Excise duty was demanded by the Revenue, as given below:- Year 2008-09 S. No. Base Year Assessable value per car carrier body Inflation rate (5.63%) Inflated assessable value per car carrier body No.of car carrier bodies cleared Total assessable value 1 2007-08 15,00,000 84,450 15,84,450 10 1,58,44,500 Year 2009-10 S. No. Base Year Assessable value per car carrier body Inflation rate (14.70%) Inflated assessable value per car carrier body No.of car carrier bodies cleared Total assessable value 1 2007-08 15,00,000 2,20, 500 17,20,500 15 2,58,07,500 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he argued by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that all 25 car carrier bodies manufactured by them have been captively used by them for their own purpose and as per the provisions of section 4 of Central excise Act, 1944, it is very categorically provided that where there is a no sale in the normal course of business, the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 need to be applied. It has further been added that the Central Excise Valuation Rule 8 specifically covers the situation where the manufactured goods are cleared for captive consumption. It has been further been added that CAS 4 certificate given by Cost Accountant is on the basis of factual cost of manufactured product on which they have added the 10% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals)' order. 8. We have heard both the sides . The basic issue before us is to determine as to whether the assessable value arrived by the appellant assessee for payment of Central Excise duty, on the car carrier body build by them, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2000 read with section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct as per provisions of law or not and secondly; whether the demand of duty is hit by bar of limitation. 9. It is seen that section 4(1)a of the Central Excise Act provides that assessable value of final products shall be the transaction value where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery within time and place of removal and where the assessable value and price of goods is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present situation under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is the closest and more appropriate because the basic requirement of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2008 that (a) that the goods are not sold and (b) the goods are used for consumption by appellant assessee, are satisfied. We are of the view that since the goods are being used by the appellant assessee himself, it is not necessary that same need to be used only for the production and manufacture of other articles. Now coming to the fact that valuation of captively used car body carriers adopted by the appellant assessee was based on certificate given by the Cost-accountant in the prescribed form of CAS 4 and on this cost of manufacture the appellant assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 we find that since same has not been subject matter either of the order in original or order of Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, we do not find any justification in commenting on the applicability of above notification in this case. 12. We also find that the demand is hit by period of limitation as on the same issue the department had issued a show cause notice earlier covering the period of 2004-2005 to 2007-2008. The present impugned show cause notice dated 26.04.2013 covers the period of financial year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 which is much beyond the normal period of demanding duty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the department has all along been aware about the practice followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
