9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RATECH CEMENT LTD., (UNIT: RAJASHREE CEMENT WORKS), VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [ 2024 (1) TMI 663 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] observed 'we have no hesitation to hold that the appropriate rules for determination of the assessable value of the goods for the transferred clinkers to sister units will be Rule 4 read with 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2004 rather than Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period in question.' Revenue Neutrality - HELD THAT:- The appellant has argued that the aspect of revenue neutrality is not considered while deciding the case for earlier period. In support, they have referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Nirlon Ltd. s case [ 2015 (5) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] . It is found that the said argument of the learned advocate is misplaced and the principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court has been misunderstood in ascertaining the correct method of valuation applicable for clearance of goods to own unit on stock transfer basis. The revenue neutrality is not a statutory concept but a principle of equity developed by courts as a mitigating factor in appreciating the intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011 dated 07.01.2011 Rs. 1,52,83,885/- - - 2 E/938/2012 25.01.2011 January 2010 to November 2010 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 13,93,772/- Rs. 13,39,772/- - 3 E/939/2012 10.03.2010 March 2008 to May 2009 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 16,74,205/- Rs. 16,74,205/- March 2008 to February 2009 4 E/940/2012 25.06.2010 June 2009 to December 2009 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 10,62,350/- Rs. 5,00,000/- - 5 E/3301/2012 27.08.2010 August 2009 to April 2010 OIA No. 504/2012 dated 03.10.2012 Rs. 28,39,876/- - - 6 E/3302/2012 30.12.2011 December 2010 to October 2011 OIA No.501/2012 dated 03.10.2012 Rs.24,58,484/- Rs.1,00,000/- 7 E/26475/2013 03.04.2012 March 2011 to December 2011 OIO No.06/2013 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.5,15,19,634/- Rs.60,00,000/- - 8 E/23319/2014 30.01.2014 March 2013 to August 2013 OIO No. BEL/EXCUS/000/COM/B. HR/008/2014 (CX) dt. 11.08.2014 Rs.2,25,94,848/- - - 9 E/23320/2014 18.10.2012 November 2011 to July 2012 OIA No. MLR-EXCUS-000- ADC-DIVII-APP-HAB-078-2014 dt. 07.08.2014 Rs.17,72,585/- - - 10 E/21492/2014 21.01.2013 January 2012 to June 2012 OIO No. BEL/EXCUS/000 /COM/B.HR/009/ 2014-(CX) dt. 25.02.2014 Rs.3,81,21,838/- - - 20.06.2013 July 2012 to D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of cement. Further, in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 the assessable value of goods has to be determined in respect of each of the clearances and not on the basis of the conceptual value of the goods sold in another transaction. In support, they have placed reliance on the Board s Circular dated 30.06.2000 and Circular dated 01.07.2002. Further, it is submitted that though order has been passed by the Tribunal in appellant s own case in Final Order No.21426/2023 observing that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 be applicable, however, the said order has been challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.14433/2024. They have submitted that in the said Final Order, the Tribunal has not considered the fact that no comparable price was available during the relevant period and hence, valuation could not have been adopted as per Rule 4 as per Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Further, in the said order, also did not consider the aspect of revenue neutrality. 3.1 He submits that the subsequent Notification No.14/2013-CE (NT) dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is, during the period in question i.e., from April 2004 to December 2012, the clinkers transferred by the appellant to their sister concern to be valued under Rule 4 or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. This Tribunal in appellant s own case for their own unit for the period from March 2011 to November 2013 held that Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 be adopted following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries case (supra). This Tribunal vide Final Order No.21426/2023 dated 22.12.2013 observed as: 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. The present dispute relates to determination of assessable value of clinkers manufactured by the appellant and cleared to their own sister units during the period March 2011 to November, 2013. 8. The Revenue s contention is that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be made applicable as the goods were not wholly consumed or transferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly applicable to the interpretation of Rule 9(2). Rule 9(2) is subservient to Section 14. We must, therefore, interpret it in such a way as to make it in accordance with the main object that is contained in Section 14 of the Customs Act. It may be that in isolation Rule 9(2) conveys some other meaning, but when it is read along with Section 14 of the Act, it must be given a meaning which is in accordance with the object of Section 14. The object of Section 14 is primary whereas the conditions in Rule 9 (2) are the accessories . The accessory must, therefore, serve the primary . 9 . In view of what we have observed above, we answer the reference in the following terms: (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here we agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in the circumstances which are explained by him and recorded above. It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. Their Lordships in the facts of said case observing revenue neutrality as a factor to analyze and appreciate the intention of the parties for non-adherence to the correct method of valuation and held that there could not be any mala fide intention to be attributed in the said case. 8. We find that this Tribunal for the earlier period while applying the principle of valuation under Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 to the circumstances of the case has set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation holding that the same cannot be applicable to cases involving interpretation of statutory principles of valuation and in absence of suppression or misdeclaration of facts on the part of the assessee. 9. Following the precedent decision in appellant s own case, the impugned order in Appeal No. E/939/2012 is modified to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
