2017 (6) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed through remand for fresh decision on duty payment dispute & benefit claim.

M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity for further proceedings. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the ... Valuation - Internal Transfer Orders - Inter Plant Transfer - Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - Held that: - the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer was not produced to the adjudicating authority. He assured that same can be produced at the time of hearing. When it is so, then we remand the matter to the original authority by setting aside the impugned order - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:1. Dispute regarding Internal Transfer Orders (ITO) and Inter Plant Transfer (IPT) leading to duty payment under Valuation Rules.2. Disagreement on acceptance of allegations by the noticee.3. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-CE for captive consumption without producing required certificate.4. Rejection of the limitation issue raised by the appellant.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the original order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur, related to the period from April 2010 to March 2011. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, used finished goods for captive consumption within their premises and other SAIL plants. The dispute arose concerning Internal Transfer Orders (ITO) and Inter Plant Transfer (IPT), where duty exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was availed. The department issued a show cause notice for short paid duty, considering transaction values below 110% of the cost of production under Valuation Rules. The Commissioner confirmed the demand on IPT and ITO clearances, leading to the appellant's appeal.2. The adjudicating authority accepted the allegations regarding duty payment under Valuation Rules, which the noticee disputed during the appeal. The appellant contended that they never accepted the allegation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision assuming the appellant did not accept the allegation, based on the submissions made during the appeal.3. Regarding the claim of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-CE for captive consumption without producing the required certificate, the appellant's counsel acknowledged that the Chartered Engineer's certificate was not submitted to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority, setting aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to produce the certificate during the hearing.4. The limitation issue raised by the appellant was rejected based on the reasons provided in the impugned order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide both issues afresh, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for further proceedings.