2015 (9) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te was arose vide show-cause notice dated 22.5.2001 stating therein that the appellant is determining value of the products (Butyl & Bladder) by adding only 4.44% profit to the cost of production, as per the price declaration filed under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1994 for intermediate goods transferred to other units for captive consumption. According to the Revenue, as per new Valuation Rules (w.e.f.01.7.2000), particularly rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 where the assessee does not sell excisable goods but using the same for captive consumption in the manufacture of other articles, the value should be 115% of the cost of production of manufacture of such goods. Accordingly, the differential duty was demanded for Rs. 43,45,022....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isputed the duty, and as the issue is revenue neutral, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after recording his finding and taking into consideration the facts as the appellants had not contested the duty of Rs. 43,45,022/- in respect of the show-cause notice dated 22.5.2001 wherein the intermediate product was consumed captively in production of excisable goods. 2.1 Pursuant to remand, the first issue as to whether the appellant is manufacturer of excisable final products, learned Commissioner has taken notice of the contention of the appellant in para 22 of the order i.e. the appellants have submitted, as on the date of show-cause notice, the final figures worked out was not av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued by the ICAI + 15% notional profit as per the earlier guidelines of the CBE&C Circular No. 258/92/96-CX dated 30.10.1996. However, vide the impugned order No. 02/Commr/Goa/CX/2007 dated 27.02.2007 the learned Commissioner was pleased to reconfirm the differential duty of Rs,2,97,633/- along with interest and further imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q read with Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 173B, Rule 52A read with Rule 173G(2), Rule 53A read with Rule 173G(4), Rule 54 read with Rule 173G(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e captively consumed in manufacture of final products for the period prior to July, 2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking notice of the fact that this Tribunal in the case of BMF Beltings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (184(ELT 158 (Tri-Bang), wherein the Tribunal has directed the Revenue for the period 1995 to 2000 to apply CAS-4 for determination of the cost of production of the captively consumed goods. Similarly, in the case of ITC Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (190) ELT 119 and Teja Engineering Vs, Commissioner of Central Excise - 2006 (193) ELT 100, Ashima Denims vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (191) ELT 318, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking notice of the consistent view taken by the Trib....