9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The Appellant receives duty paid input material such as ingots required for the manufacture of finished products from their own factory/unit at Hirakud on payment of duty. Such input materials being cleared to the Appellant by the Hirakud unit are valued at 110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Valuation Rules'). Such products received by the Appellant are worked upon by the Appellant and subsequently, a part of the finished products is cleared to the Appellant's own factories/units at Hirakud, Kalwa, Taloja, Silvassa, and Belgaum. 3. The assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... underlying Show Cause Notice. However, the Order-in-Original dated 30.10.2007 was passed confirming the demand based on the finding that the Appellant had undervalued the goods during inter-unit transfer by taking the value of raw materials as per the cost certificate which is less than the value on the invoices vide which the Appellant received the goods. 6. The Appellant being aggrieved by the Order dated 30.10.2007, preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) [Copy of appeal enclosed in pages 75 to 96 of the Appeal Paper Book].The Appellant duly reiterated in the appeal that the actual cost of raw materials has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation of cost of production and not the 110% of the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Appellant's other factories/units. Hence, demand of differential duty is clearly revenue neutral. 9. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Appellant's own case Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II - 2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT Kolkata concerning an issue pertaining to valuation of inter-unit transfer in, had held that no demand is sustainable in cases of revenue neutral situations. 10. Based on this submission, he prays that the Appeal may be allowed on merits. 11. Heard the Ld.AR for the department, who reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 12. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal papers and cited case laws. 13. We find that the issue is no more res integra. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the appellant was availed as Cenvat Credit by TML. He relies on the following case law:- a) Jai Balaji Indus. V. CCE, Bolpur [2023 (6) TMI 1102-CESTAT Kolkata] b) HIndalco Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar-II [2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT Kolkata] ........................ ........................ 8. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the cited decisions of this Tribunal, wherein it has been held that when the duty paid by the parent unit is eligible as Cenvat Credit to the receiving unit, the entire proceeding becomes revenue neutral. 9. We also find force in the Appellant's submissions that the Department has issued the Show Cause Notice in a belated way though all the details were available with the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
