9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.' As the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of NALCO, the appellant has correctly paid the duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules as per CAS-4. Therefore, no differential duty is payable by the appellant. Penalty - HELD THAT:- As there is no demand against the appellant, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate and Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Prosenjit Das, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding differential duty in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has integrated steel plants and carries on the manufacture of various iron and steel and allied products. 2.1 The present dispute relates to the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) of the appellant situated at Durgapur in the State of West Bengal. 2.2 The appellant is duly registered wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the same is extracted below : Valuation (Central Excise) Captive consumption Cost of production to be in accordance with CAS-4 Circular No. 692/8/2003-CX., dated 13-2-2003 F. No. 6/29/2002-CX.I Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi Subject : Valuation of goods captively consumed. I am directed to say that on introduction of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000, w.e.f. 1-7-2000, it was clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000 (para 21) [2000 (119) E.L.T. T22] that for valuing goods which are captively consumed, the general principles of costing would be adopted for applying Rule 8. The Board has interacted with the Institute of Cost Works Accountants of India (ICWAI) for developing costing standards for costing of captively consumed goods. 2. The Institute of Cost Works Accountants of India [ICWAI] has since developed the Cost Accounting Standards, CAS 2, 3 and 4, on capacity determination, overheads cost of production for captive consumption, respectively, which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case such a situation does not arise since the Circular has taken care to specifically clarify that existing instructions may be deemed to be modified . Since the earlier instruction is to be deemed to be modified, it would not be permissible to apply them without the said modification. The appellant-assessees are also right in their contention that Revenue is bound by the Circular; while assessees are at liberty to contest the circulars. Therefore, in pending matters, the assessee can seek determination of his case under a later beneficial circular by pointing out that instructions contained in the earlier circulars are incorrect and the matter should be settled according to general principles developed by an authority competent to lay down standards. Tribunal and Courts are duty bound to consider such a contention. This position enunciated in the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 674 has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Eswaran Sons Engineers Ltd. 6 . We may also note that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eswaran Sons Engineers Ltd. does not support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e general principles of cost accounting, and that the latest circular which incorporated correct principles should be followed in all pending cases. It is also to be noticed that the latest circular of 2003 specifically states that the earlier instructions have to be deemed to be modified by the later circular. Thus, Revenue had no independently sustainable claim. Its claim is based entirely on circulars issued from to time. That too, on incorrect costing principles. It would be wholly incorrect to apply old circulars without considering the modifications brought about by the latest circular, particularly when, as noted already, it is well settled that assessees are not bound by any circular, though at liberty to seek the benefit of circulars and a Court has to allow such a claim while Revenue is bound by its own circulars. 7. In view of what is stated above, all the appeals are allowed by way of remand with the direction to the original authorities to decide valuation in terms of the Circular No. 692/8/2003, dated 13-2-2003. The said order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court in 2016. 9. The Revenue sought to distinguish the decision of their own case for the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
