2017 (1) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, Ld. AR for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s Steel Authority of India is in appeal against Commissioner, Raipur s order dated 28.11.2009 whereunder demand of duty along with the interest was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 1,22,825/- also imposed on the appellant. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant, M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (Bhilai Steel Plant), is manufact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., valuation need not be done under Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 but rather under Section 4(1) (b) of the Excise Act read with Rules 8,9 ,10 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 2.2. The Revenue had requested the appellant to furnish the details of cost of production in respect of the products removed on IPT (Inter Plant Transfer) and ITO (Inter Transfer Order)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay the differential duty of Rs. 1,22,825/- on the ITO clearances made in its own plant during April 2007, August 2007 and September 2007. 3. The appellant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate Sh. B.L. Narsimhan and Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Sh. Yogesh Agarwal. 4. After careful consideration of the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, which was prevailing at that time will have no application in the present case where the goods are only partly sold under ex-factory basis and partly cleared for capitation consumption. 4.2. CESTAT in case of SAIL vs. CCE & C. BBSR-II (supra), Kolkata has observed as under: 2. The contention of the appellants is that 99% of the production is clea....