TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1998 were issued to the appellant for the period April, 1997 to December, 1997 which was adjudicated by a common order by confirming the demand against the appellant. On appeal, the said order was set aside vide order dated 10.11.1998. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 11.10.1999 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). In remand proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods are comparable and remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the demand vide order dated 9.6.2005. The said order was challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed as time barred by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.12.2005. In remand proceedings, as per the order dated 9.6.2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority decided apart from three show cause notices in question considered the SCN issued for the period from January, 1998 to December, 1999 and confirmed the demand against the appellant. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the part of demand and confirmed the demand of Rs. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd.-2015 (318) ELT 592 (SC) (iii) Kandivali Metal Works Vs.CCE-1997 (90) ELT 187 (Tri.) affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 1998 (97) ELT A222 (SC) (iv) CCE Vs. MP Veneer & Plywood (P) Ltd.-2000 (118) ELT 744 (Tri.) (v) Kalyani Ferrous India Ltd. Vs. CCE-2002 (148) ELT 341 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Kripa Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE-2005 (191) ELT 801 (Tri.-Bang.) (vii) CCE Vs. Modern Woollen Mills Ltd.-2004 (165) ELT 108 (Tri.-Del.) maintained by the SC reported at 2007 (209) ELT A160 (SC) (viii) Moti Biscuits Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE-2003 (159) ELT 1037 (Tri.) (ix) Geoffrey Manners & Co.Ltd. Vs. CCE-2006 (204) ELT 403 (Tri.-Mum). 6. It is her further submission that the decision of Indian Carbon Ltd. Vs. CCE-1998 (24) RLT 260 (CEGAT) which was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 1999 (105) ELT 257 (SC) is of no relevance to the present matter as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter back to the lower authorities. That order therefore cannot be relied on in support of the proposition that the goods manufactured on job work basis can be assessed on the basis of value of comparable goods. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h following observations: 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that in the case of India Carbon Ltd., the Supreme Court remanded the matter to find whether the goods are comparable or not. If the goods are not comparable then rule 6 (b) (i) is not applicable. In the present case, though the party has taken plea before the lower authorities that the goods are not comparable, we find that there is no clear finding by the Commissioner whether the goods are comparable or otherwise. Moreover, he has relied upon the decision of Kandivali Metal Works in deciding the issue. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the Commissioner has not examine this important aspect and to give a clearing finding whether the goods are comparable or not. In the view, we have taken, we are remanding these three matters to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the respondents. In remand order, this Tribunal has considered that the Commissioner (Appeals) has to decide whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity is not the ground on which the Tribunal allowed the appeal. That apart, even in law, so far as this Court is concerned, it is not bound by the finding of the Tribunal rendered in the first instance while remanding the case to the lower authorities because this Court is now hearing an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in which the earlier order has merged. This Court in the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand [(1977) 2 SCC 155] has held :- "In an appeal against the High Courts finding the Supreme Court is not bound by what the High Court might have held in its remand order. It is true that a subordinate court is bound by the direction of the High Court. It is equally true that the same High Court, hearing the matter on a second occasion or any other court of coordinate authority hearing the matter cannot discard the earlier holding, but a finding in a remand order cannot bind a higher Court when it hears the matter in appeal." (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the above contention of the respondent has to be rejected. 15. Further this Tribunal in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra) following the decision of the Apex in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the remand proceedings. Therefore, the said issue can be agitated by the appellant at any stage which being legal in nature. In that circumstance, we hold that the appellant is having right to agitate the issue of applicability of Rule 6 (b) (i) in the appeal pending before us. Moreover, we find that the order of remand by this Tribunal is applicable only to the show cause notice issued for the period April, 1997 to December, 1997 and the said order is not applicable to the show cause notice issued subsequent to that period. Therefore, we answer the issue No.1 in favour of the appellant. 16. Now we come to the issue whether the provisions of Rule 6 (b) (i) are applicable or not? 17. For better appreciation, the provisions of Rule 6 (b) (i) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 are reproduced below: Rule 6. If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under rule 4 or rule 5, and - (a) ---------- (b) Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be based (i) on the value of the comparable go....