9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation 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 revenue neutrality is not a statutory concept but a principle of equity developed by courts as a mitigating factor in appreciating the intention of the persons while applying the principle of law to a particular situation to determine the reason for non-payment of duty. Revenue neutrality cannot be considered as an incentive not to follow the statutory provision governing principle of valuation solely on the ground that the other unit could avail the benefit of credit of the differential duty payable.
Conclusion - i) The goods transferred should be valued under Rule 4 read with Rule 11. ii) Revenue neutrality cannot be a reason to deviate from statutory provisions and that the correct method of valuation should be applied.
Appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 3.2. He submits that the subsequent Notification No.14/2013-CE (NT) dated 22.11.2013 amended Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 where Rule 8, 9, 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 has been amended. The amendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 22.12.2023 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 transferred to their sister units but a portion of the goods were sold to independent buyers. It is their argument that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rule 11 be applied in arriving at the assessable value of the clinkers transferred to the sister units. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. Therefore, 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
