9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) TMI 280 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] answered the reference, holding that the decision of the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT rendered in Final Order No. 542/2010 dated 11.05.2010 in the Revenue s appeal against M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd. [ 2011 (4) TMI 141 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] and the subsequent decision of the same Regional Bench as reported in CCE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. [ 2011 (4) TMI 141 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] represent the correct position in law - The findings of the Larger Bench are The percentage of loading on such cost of production, mandated by provisions of Rule 8 for remittance of excise duty by the Bhadrachalam unit cannot not however be considered as comprised in the cost of the raw material consumed for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 2006-2007 38/2012 dt 24.12.2012 3,62,23,605/- 15/2013 (M-I) dt 28.02.2013 TOTAL 10,95,80,702/- 3. The points for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the above orders, which are also the points for determination listed in the appeal, are as under:- (i) Whether or not the IDSC debit notes would form part of the cost of paper and paper board received from their Bhadrachalam Unit? (ii) Whether or not the value of paper received from Bhadrachalam unit is 115%/110% of cost of production or just 100% in the hands of the appellant? (iii) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othes, etc. 6. The three issues on which the demand for differential duty was confirmed by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner have since been decided in the appellant s favour by the Tribunal Vide Final Order No. 40094/2023 dated 28.2.2023 in respect of the period 2001 2003 04 involving identical facts. She drew our attention to the interim order dated 11.2.2014 and subsequent interim order dated 12.2.2016. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that all the three issues on merits stood covered by the orders of this Tribunal for the prior period. However, he decided issues (i) and (ii) against the appellant because on issue (i) the Revenue had already preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court and on issue (ii) an appeal wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to discuss the issue of limitation and penalty. 3. The Issue No. 2, which was referred to the Larger Bench, reads as under:- (i) Whether, in the case of inter-unit transfer of goods for captive consumption, the entire value (i.e. 115% / 110% of the cost of production) OR the actual cost of production (i.e. 100% of cost) excluding notional loading (i.e. 15% / 10%) of the goods manufactured by the one unit, would be the cost of raw material of the another unit (who used the goods in the manufacture of another article) for the purpose of determining value under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules and CAS-4 issued by ICWAI, for transferring the goods to their other unit for further use. (ii) Whether the decision of Chennai Bench in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng material and thus constituting the cost of production at the Chennai unit; (b) In view of the conclusions recorded in (a) above, we hold that the decision of the Chennai Division Bench of CESTAT in the Final Order dt. 11.5.2010 in Revenue s appeal in Eveready Industries and the subsequent decision of the same Regional Bench in the judgment reported in 2011 (274) ELT 564 represent the correct position in law. The decision of the Mumbai Division Bench in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Thane-II 2013- TIOL-707 = 2014 (300) ELT 571 (Tri. Mumbai) does not represent correct view regarding application of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and the same is overruled. 5. The matter was remitted by the Larger Bench for disposing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
