9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that there is no provision for taking the value shown in the insurance policy particularly in the fact of the present case as submitted by the appellant the value shown in the insurance policy has so many addition such as Ship stores and other addition in the barge post manufacturing of the barges therefore the value shown in the insurance policy does not represent the correct value of the barges. As regard the appellant s computation of the value we find that there is a Chartered Accountant Certificate which is based on the ledger and books of account of the appellant where from the total cost of manufacture has been arrived at. There are nothing wrong in the method of valuation by the appellant particularly for the reason that the department has no basis to challenge such valuation and no evidence to contradict the value arrived by the appellant therefore we are of the view that the appellant have correctly arrived at the value of barges. Therefore the differential excise duty on the dispute of valuation will not be sustainable. Whether the availment of Cenvat credit on the input and input service used in the three barges manufactured by the appellant prior to manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 8904 which was chargeable to Nil rate of duty. With effect from 01.03.2011 said entry was replaced by 5% Tariff rate. The appellant had manufactured 3 Barges and cleared (two) on 30.03.2011 and (one) on 24.01.2012. On being realized about the duty payable on such goods the appellant applied for Central Excise registration on 23.01.2012 which was issued on 30.03.2012. The appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,97,58,889/- in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the goods used in all the aforesaid 3 barges and out of which they have paid duty of Rs. 1,77,80,904/- on all the 3 barges. Since the appellant have not sold the barges but used captively for providing output service they have valued the barges in terms of Rule 8 that is cost of manufacturing + 10% notional profit. Thus, on the said value the duty was paid along with interest for the delayed period. The appellant have intimated to the jurisdiction Commissioner with the copy to the Deputy Commissioner, Range Superintendent vide letter dated 16.05.2012 about payment of Central Excise Duty with interest as provided under section 11A(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and as provided under section 11A (2). Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsurance policy cannot be taken for the valuation of barges. Therefore the department has taken absolutely incorrect value for assessing the duty of barges. As regard the issue of averment of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,97,58,889/- he submits that the credit was denied only on the ground that this credit is in respect of input service received before the manufacture and taking central excise registration. He submits that there is no dispute that all the input and input service were used in relation to the manufacture of barges therefore as per the transitional provision credit even though not availed at the time of receipt but the same is used in the excisable goods, the credit is admissible as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 therefore merely because the input and input services were received prior to manufacture and taking Central Excise registration Cenvat credit cannot be denied. He further submits that even after payment of duty amount of Rs.1,77,80,904/- there was unutilized credit of Rs. 1,35,94,860/-the same was reversed consequently before exempted. In this regard, no demand sustain whether the differential duty due to valuation dispute or the demand of Cenvat credit. In support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2000. The revenue sought to value the goods on the basis of value declared in insurance policy. We find that there is no provision for taking the value shown in the insurance policy particularly in the fact of the present case as submitted by the appellant the value shown in the insurance policy has so many addition such as Ship stores and other addition in the barge post manufacturing of the barges therefore the value shown in the insurance policy does not represent the correct value of the barges. As regard the appellant s computation of the value we find that there is a Chartered Accountant Certificate which is based on the ledger and books of account of the appellant where from the total cost of manufacture has been arrived at. We do not find anything wrong in the method of valuation by the appellant particularly for the reason that the department has no basis to challenge such valuation and no evidence to contradict the value arrived by the appellant therefore we are of the view that the appellant have correctly arrived at the value of barges. Therefore the differential excise duty on the dispute of valuation will not be sustainable. As regard the dispute on admissibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
