9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of excise duty of Rs. 13,02,24,660/- along with interest and equal amount of duty as penalty. 2. M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, SAIL Refractories Unit, Ranchi Road Plant(hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant'/SAIL) are engaged in the manufacture of refractory materials like Magnesia Carbon Bricks and Magnesia Masses falling under the tariff items 69021040 and 38160000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the underlying period, the Appellant upon payment of excise duty supplied refractory bricks and magnesia masses to units of SAIL as well as to independent customers. The price charged in both the cases were more or less same. The department had initiated investigation against the Appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been appropriated in the impugned order. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The appellant submits that the entire demand is not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality. The final product cleared from the Appellant's factory to their other units are used by the other factories in the manufacture of their dutiable finished products which are cleared by them on payment of applicable excise duty. The other factories of the Appellant are availing the credit of duty paid by the Appellant and utilizing the same for payment of duty on the final product cleared. Thus, the Appellant submits that the differential duty confirmed shall be available as credit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for interunit transfer of refractory materials used by the other factories in the manufacture of their dutiable finished products and the same products are also sold by the Appellant to unrelated buyers. 6.1. We observe that the issue is no longer res integra, as this Tribunal has already decided this issue in the Appellant's own case Steel Authority of India v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi I, vide Final Order No. 75435/2025 in Excise Appeal No. 75523 of 2016 pertaining to a different unit of the same assessee and concerning the same issue pertaining to valuation of inter-unit transfer of refractory material had held that no demand is sustainable since the issue is revenue neutral. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty paid by them will be available as credit for their sister unit. We agree with this view of the Appellant. The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral..... 16. We find the above decisions are squarely applicable to the Appellant. As the entire exercise would be revenue neutral, there is no loss of revenue to the exchequer." 6.3. In view of the above discussions and by relying upon the decisions cited supra we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same. Since the demand of duty is not sustained, the question of demanding interest and imposition of penalty does not arise. 7. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
