TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ractors. The tractors were chargeable to duty for the period prior to 09.07.2004. The period involved in this case is November 1996 to March 2001. In one appeal the appellant is Automotive Division and manufactured motor vehicles parts and cleared to their own other units located at Igatpuri, Nashik and Zaheerabad. The dispute in the present case is that the appellant adopted valuation as per the valuation Rules 6b(ii) of erstwhile Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. According to which the assessable value arrived at on cost construction method. The department's objection is that the assessable value which is on cost construction method is not correct in as much as the appellant have not included Head Office admin expenses, R&D expenses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessable value. 2.1 Shri Ostwal, Learned Counsel without prejudice to the above submissions, further submits that all the duty paid or payable by the appellant is available as MODVAT/CENVAT credit to their Rudrapur and Nagpur unit where the goods were cleared. These units are paying duty in PLA. During the relevant period 1997 to 2002 these units had paid Rs. 75.49 crores from PLA. Similarly the motor vehicle parts manufactured at their Kandivli unit and cleared to their other units located at Igatpuri, Nashik and Zaheerabad where during the relevant period recipient units have paid duty in PLA to the tune of Rs. 16.41 crores. In this fact the payment of duty by the appellant and availment of MODVAT/CENVAT credit by their own recipient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below:- CCE, C & ST Vs Tarapur Grease India Pvt Ltd - [2016 (334) ELT 416 (Bom.)] "4. We have with the assistance of Mr. Oak and Mr. Shah perused the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noted the factual controversy. It has noted that three companies are indeed associate companies or concerns/firms. They are in identical business, managed and administered by common partners and directors and have a common head office. The product namely the inputs which were raw materials for all three companies/concerns arrived at the factories and were cleared without payment simply because they were exchanged with the associate companies. It is no doubt true that the procedure adopted was not in consonance with the formalities prescribed by law, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the adjudicating authority, that this mode of clearance gives some temporary benefit to the associate companies but the objection raised was of diversion of goods. That case could not be substantiated by the Revenue as is evident from even Paragraph 67.10 of the order of the adjudicating authority. 6. In our view, therefore, merely because the penalty has been notionally imposed on all the assessees, does not mean that the Tribunal's earlier conclusion, and by applicability of the principle of revenue neutrality, is perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. Imposition of the notional penalty is for infraction of some procedural rule. That has no bearing on the main issue." CCE Vs Special Steel Ltd - [2015 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al without expressing any view on the questions of fact/law involved in this case." CCE & C Vs Indeos ABS Ltd - [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)] "4. The aforesaid findings of facts are not disputed. The grievance was that the aspect of undervaluation has not been considered by the Tribunal at all. Grievance would have merited acceptance if the ultimate exercise would have benefited the Revenue by collection of duty in the coffers of the exchequer. In the facts of the present case, admittedly no such benefit accrues to the exchequer. In the circumstances, if the Tribunal has chosen not to determine an academic issue, it is not possible to state that any legal infirmity exists in the impugned order of the Tribunal." STI Industries Vs CCE - [201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of limitation is sustainable, we hold it so. Since the most of the demand is set aside, having held that there was no intention to evade duty, we find that penalties imposed are unwarranted and they are set aside. In view of our above observation and findings we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue and allow the appeal filed by M/s. STI to the extent that the demands of CVD raised by invoking extended period of limitation are not sustainable and only the demand of CVD under normal period would survive. We also set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC." In view of the above judgments, it has been consistently held that even though duty is payable and the recipient unit is part of the same entity and is eligible for MODVAT/CENV....