9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS [ 2014 (2) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and also noticed that a Division Bench of the Tribunal in COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2011 (2) TMI 57 - CESTAT MUMBAI] had taken a contrary view. The Division Bench, therefore, referred the questions for consideration by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. KRISHNA FOOD PRODUCTS held that Parle was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to the final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between the manufacturing plants of Parle and its contract manufacturing units, including the appellant (Krishna Food), under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for manufacture of the biscuits are supplied by Parle Biscuits which pays for the inputs but the appellant takes credit of the same and utilises the credit for payment of duty on the biscuits cleared on account of Parle Biscuits. The appellant also claims that it availed and utilised input services used in relation to the manufacture of biscuits for Parle Biscuits in accordance with the provision of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 [CENVAT Rules]. 5. The final product is cleared on payment of excise duty by the appellant on the maximum retail price declared by Parle that is printed on the packages of the biscuits, as is provided under rule 10A of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 [Valuation Rules]. The excise duty paid by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther Parle Biscuits was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to the final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between the manufacturing plants of Parle Biscuits and its contract manufacturing units, including the appellant, under rule 7(d) of the CENVAT Rules. 9. A Division Bench of the Tribunal while hearing Excise Appeal No. 52692 of 2019, Excise Appeal No. 52693 of 2019 and Excise Appeal No. 52694 of 2019 expressed reservations about the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in Sunbell Alloys Co. of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Belapur [2014 (34) S.T.R. 597 (Tri.- Mumbai)] and also noticed that a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
