9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-I [ 2007 (3) TMI 613 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] Affirmed by Supreme Court in SRF LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER [ 2016 (4) TMI 1068 - SC ORDER ], GHATGE PATIL INDS. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [ 2005 (7) TMI 648 - CESTAT MUMBAI ], M/S AUTOMOTIVE STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE-I [ 2019 (5) TMI 1169 - CESTAT MUMBAI ], AD-MANUM PACKAGING LTD. VERSUS CCE, INDORE [ 2016 (9) TMI 630 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], CCE AHMEDABAD-II VERSUS M/S RECLAMATION WELDING LTD. [ 2014 (8) TMI 186 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ], to support his stand apart from the fact that in the Appellant s own case, for two other periods pre and post 2007, demand against the Appellant has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. During the process of manufacturing, certain waste and scrap of Iron Steel were generated which were cleared as scarp on payment of applicable duty on them. Claim of the Respondent-Department is that Appellant had retained the scrap in respect of job work done for SAIL, for which sale proceeds of the same, being as additional consideration, should have been included in the value of rolled products. Accordingly, demand was raised through show-cause notice, matter was adjudicated upon, demand with consequential penalty and interest got confirmed in the adjudication order and Appellant s unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) has brought the dispute to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) is unsustainable both in law and facts. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. P.K. Acharya argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has drawn our attention to the impugned order stating that placing reliance on the decision of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1996 (12) TMI 206 CEGAT, MADRAS, General Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2005-TIOL-187-SC-CX and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Lloyds Steels Inds. Ltd. reported in 2005 (3) TMI 17 Supreme Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08) ELT 542 (T), CCE Vs. Raja Magnetic Limited reported in 2017-TIOL-1420-CESTAT-BANG, Standard Drums and Barrels Vs. CCE vide Final Order Nos. A/86853-86854/2018 dated 28.06.2018, Sigma Punch Vs. CCE reported in 2018-TIOL-1347- CESTAT-BANG, CCE Vs. Rane Brakes Lining reported in 2018-TIOL- 1058-CESTAT-MAD, Ghatge Patil Vs. CCE reported in 2014-TIOL- 1760-CESTAT-MUM, to support his stand apart from the fact that in the Appellant s own case, for two other periods pre and post 2007, demand against the Appellant has been set aside for the reason that value of scrap need not be included in the assessable value. In furtherance of the consistency and predictability of the judgment passed by this Tribunal and in obedience to the judicial precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
