9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 115% / 110%) of the goods manufactured by 1 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 the value under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and Cost Accounting Standard-4 issued by ICWAI - Confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine - penalty. HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate that this appeal is remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd March 2013 with a direction that the Tribunal on remand reconsiders the issue in the light of the decision of the larger bench in the case of M/S ITC LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2016 (4) TMI 280 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . Appeal disposed off. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2004 and raised audit report dated 28.9.2004 wherein this very dispute was raised and which was duly replied by the Petitioners vide letter dated 16.10.2004; (ii) no such dispute was raised in past when price declarations were fled on 21.7.2000 and 1.12.2000 for valuation of wire rods from Tarapur factory to Borivali factory; (iii) no such dispute was raised when assessments for valuation of wire rods from Tarapur factory to Borivali factory for the period October 1994 till June 2000 were kept provisional which were finalised vide Order in - Original dated 15.3.2001; (iv) no such dispute was raised when show cause notice dated 8.8.2005 [affirmed by Order in Original dated 28.12.2005 which in turn was set aside by Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Order passed by the Hon ble Appellate Tribunal is per incuriam of coordinate Bench judgment in CCE Vs. Eveready Industries Limited Order No. 542/10 dated 11th May, 2010 and CCE Vs. Eveready Industries 2011 (274) ELT 564 (T) and hence vitiated? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order passed by the Hon ble Appellate Tribunal results in double taxation since it overlooked the undisputable position as evident from the price declarations dated 21.7.2000 and 1.12.2000 that while calculating the assessable value being 110% of cost of production of wire rods cleared from Tarapur factory to Borivali factory, the appellants had considered not only full cost of raw material including the cost of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration on account of the fact that the impugned decision has been reversed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in (2016) 333 ELT 287. 3. The short issue which arises for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is whether in the case of Interunit transfer of goods for captive consumption, the entire value (i.e. 115% / 110% of the cost of production) or the actual cost of production (that is 100% of cost) excluding notional loading (that is 115% / 110%) of the goods manufactured by 1 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 the value under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the wire rods should be arrived at by taking the cost of input that is billet at 115% /110% of the cost of production and not the actual cost of production. The said decision of the Tribunal is reported in 2014 (300) ELT 571. 6. The above-referred decision in the case of the Appellant-Assessee was in conflict with the decision of the Chennai Bench in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Eveready Industries Ltd. 2011 (274) ELT 564 (T) and, therefore, in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (333) ELT 287, the issue was referred to larger bench for resolving the conflict. 7. The larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra) observed that the decision of the Chennai Bench in the case of Eveready ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tentions of the parties open. 11. The Respondent-Revenue contended that the present Appeal be heard on merits and opposed the prayer for remand as made by the Appellant-Assessee. 12. Having considered the decision of the larger bench and the question which otherwise would fall for our consideration in relation to both what has been held in the impugned order in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee and also in regard to the larger bench decision, in our opinion, it would be appropriate that this appeal is remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd March 2013 with a direction that the Tribunal on remand reconsiders the issue in the light of the decision of the larger bench in the case of ITC Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
