9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is decided on merits to hold that Rule 8 of the Valuation is not applicable in the instant case, we are not further entering into the issue of revenue neutrality as pleaded by the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In so far as the limitation is concerned, we do not find any positive evidence in the entire SCN to prove the element of fraud or suppression and hence, the extended period is not applicable in the instant case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.76564 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO.75549/2021 - Dated:- 27-8-2021 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJU, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The instant appeal has been filed by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, assailing the demand of central excise duty of ₹ 48,60,79,403/- incl. cess vide Order in Original no. 33/Central Excise/Pr. Commr./2018 dated 14.02.2018 alongwith equivalent penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pertaining to the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons but only one person i.e. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), the appellant herein. The different Areas/Units which were separately registered are under one single legal entity i.e. BCCL. Therefore, no related person exists in the transaction between the separately registered Areas/units of the same legal entity and consequently Section 4(3)(b)(iv) of the Act is not applicable at all. To support his contentions, he relied on the Tribunal s decision in the case of India United Mills v Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 430 (Tri-Mumbai). He accordingly submitted that the appellant which is a coal producing area (transferor of raw coal) and the washeries unit (transferee) are under one single entity i.e. BCCL and hence are one person and cannot be treated as different persons and hence, the very concept of related person does not arise in their case. 4. The Ld. Advocate also disputed the applicability of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules as adopted by the Ld. Commissioner to raise the impugned demand. He referred to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules which reads as below:- Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... automatically resolved. This fact has been admitted by the Ld. Commissioner in paras 3.4 and 3.5 of the impugned order which clearly shows that the disputed issue was for a particular period only and is a non-recurring issue and hence, now academic in nature. He relied on Tribunal s Mumbai Bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v Special Steel Limited, 2015 (329) ELT 449 (Tri-Mumbai) to support his arguments, which has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Commissioner v. Special Steel Ltd. - 2016 (334) E.L.T. A123 (S.C.). The Ld. Advocate also placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal s Mumbai Bench in Mahindra Mahindra Ltd v CCE, Mumbai, 2019 (368) ELT 105 (Tri-Mumbai), civil appeal against which has been dismissed by Supreme Court 2019 (368) ELT A41 (SC). The Tribunal in that case decided the issue of differential duty demand arising out of valuation on clearances to sister unit on the principle of revenue neutrality. In that case, the Tribunal set aside the demand solely on the principle of revenue neutrality without visiting the issue on valuation:- CCE, C ST v. Tarapur Grease India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (334) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nits were separately registered with jurisdictional excise authorities. The question of valuation in the centralised excise registration regime, i.e. from November 2015 onwards, did not further arise as the transferor was not required to pay central excise duty since all the units were all clubbed in single registration. Firstly, we decide the issue as to whether the transferor unit and the transferee unit can be said to be related person so as to invoke the very Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. We find that the issue has been decided by Mumbai Bench in India United Mills v Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 430 (Tri-Mumbai) wherein the Division Bench observed as below:- We find that the CDC is like a depot owned by M/s. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and the appellant is a unit of said company. Therefore, all the three i.e., National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd., the appellant and CDC, are under one single entity, i.e. the company, M/s. National Textiles Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. Therefore, among three there are no different persons involved. Accordingly, there is no related person exist in the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
