2019 (4) TMI 1407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ins to clearance from BSNL Telecom Factory, Alipur. In these factories, the appellants manufactured various goods required for providing telecom services, such as, Tower and SS Dropwire, D.P. Boxes, C.T. Boxes etc.. The goods manufactured in the telecom factories are cleared to various BSNL Telecom Circle. Since such services do not involve sales, the valuation of the goods so cleared, was required to be made in terms of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The dispute pertains to both the factories covering the period 2003-04 to 2006-07. The goods were cleared from the factory on payment of Central Excise duty on value arrived at on the basis of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. For arriving at the cost, the appellant ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he sake of convenience. 4. BSNL is represented by Shri B.N. Das, ld. Consultant and Revenue is represented by Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, ld. D.R. 5. The ld. Consultant raised the following major arguments : (i) He submitted that the Department has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in 2007. Hence, it is settled that BSNL may proceed to value of the goods cleared to Telecom Circles on the basis of Challaning Rate. He also submitted that an exercise was undertaken at the end of BSNL for re-calculating the value of the goods cleared by adopting Challaning Rate for the respective years. On the basis of such calculation, BSNL has already paid the differential duty. However, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, has confirmed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be adopted for clearance of such goods is required to be done on the basis of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Since no sale involved, this dispute has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of BSNL's earlier case (supra) in the year 2007. CESTAT, in that case, has taken the view that there is no requirement to add notional profit of 10%/15% and that the valuation may be decided under Rule 11 by adopting Challaning Rate. Keeping such decision of the Tribunal in view, it appears that the valuations during the disputed period in this case, are also to be done on the basis of Challaning Rate. The adjudicating authority has pointed out that Challaning Rate, which is required to be adopted, should be on the basis of the value of material .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X