9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LHI] has held that when the goods are cleared from one unit to another belonging the same manufacturer, the situation is one of revenue neutrality, inasmuchas any differential duty paid by the first Unit will be available to the second Unit as credit. It has been held that the demand itself is unjustified under such circumstances. Revenue has raised serious objection for allowing the benefit of Revenue neutrality - Revenue neutrality can be considered for only those cases where the clearance is made from one unit to another both belonging to the same manufacturer - the present appeal may be allowed on the argument of Revenue neutrality. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/170/2003 - FO/76736/2018 - Dated:- 8-10-2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cost of production. 2. Show Cause Notices were issued covering the period under dispute which was finalized by Original Authority. The appeal against the said order was decided by way of impugned order in which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the issue for re-determination of value for the period August 1998 to April 1999. For the period July 2000 to March 2001, he up-held the demand already confirmed. The impugned order stands challenged in the present appeal. 3. The appellant is represented by J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate and the Revenue is represented by S. S. Chattopadhyaya, Ld. A. R. 4. The submissions of the Ld. Senior Counsel are summarized below:- (i) The appellant had paid the duty for the period prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs (Imports), Raigad reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 656 (S.C.), b) Nitin Spinner Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-II, reported in 2017 (355) E.L. T. 562 (Tri.-Del.) and c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). On the support of above decisions, he submitted that Revenue neutrality cannot be cited as a ground for non-payment of duty. Finally, he submitted that the impugned order may be upheld. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7. The dispute is regarding the valuation of goods to be adopted for payment of Central Excise Duty at the time of clearance of goods from Unit-I to Unit-II. Such goods are used by Unit-II, also belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the situation is one of revenue neutrality, inasmuchas any differential duty paid by the first Unit will be available to the second Unit as credit. It has been held that the demand itself is unjustified under such circumstances. By following the LB decision, the Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Puducherry (Supra) has set aside the demand in similar circumstances. The observation of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- 2. On behalf of the appellant, Learned Counsel Shri C. Santhosh submitted that the fabrics produced by them in Unit C is in a unprocessed stage. Since the said unit does not have the facility for carrying out the process of bleaching, dyeing and printing, the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that when there is revenue neutrality, the demand of duty is unsustainable. 6. We find that it is a fit case to set aside the demand on the basis of revenue neutrality which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Above decision has been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court also. 10. Revenue has raised serious objection for allowing the benefit of Revenue neutrality. They have also cited case laws. Having perused these case laws, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
