9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of cement of various grades and clinkers falling under Chapter 25 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. The appellant had cleared cement to their own RMC/packing units declaring the assessable value as 110% of cost of production following the principle of valuation prescribed under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Alleging that the principle of valuation adopted by the appellant is incorrect and the value should be determined applying Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, two show-cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding differential duty with interest with proposal to impose penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.14/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has submitted that the said principle has been followed in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolkata-II: 2024 (6) TMI 1000-Cestat-Kolkata and held that there is no question of evasion of duty. 3.3. Further it is submitted that since the issue relates to interpretation of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and the differential duty payable is admissible to their sister unit as credit hence, imposition of penalty and demand of interest also not sustainable. 3.4. He has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case decided vide Final order No.21139-21149/2024 dated 23.10.2024 and Final order No.21426/2023 dated 22.12.2023. 4. The learned Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clinkers transferred to the sister units. The relevant Rules are reproduced below: RULE 4. The value of the excisable goods shall be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of the removal of goods under assessment, subject, if necessary, to such adjustment on account of the difference in the dates of delivery of such goods and of the excisable goods under assessment, as may appear reasonable. RULE 8. Where whole or part of the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value of such goods that are consumed shall be one hundred and ten per cent of the cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 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. This can be discerned from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirlon Ltd.'s case which is reads as: "8. We may note that Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, vehemently countered the aforesaid submission of the appellant and argued that there was clear intention to evade the Excise duty. His submission was that the clearance of the goods which wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
