2017 (7) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sri K. K. Achariya, Advocate For Appellant Sri H.S. Abedin, A.C. (A.R.) For Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 30/05/2007 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel items liable to Central Excise duty. They have used HR Coils as one of the material in their manufacture. In the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order. The original authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,02,27,859/-, on this account and also imposed equal amount of penalty in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order submitted mainly on the following grounds: a) The clearances to their two other units at Derabasi and Chandigarh on transaction of sale, on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... admittedly the appellants had sold the impugned goods at the factory gate to the independent buyers. This much is noted in the impugned order, at para 7. However, the original authority concluded that the appellant should pay duty on the basis of CAS-4 valuation in respect of the impugned goods cleared to their two other units situated at Chandigarh and Derabasi. First of all, we note that such c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lants cannot be considered as captive consumption. There is no factual support for such assumption. 7. In this connection we find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2015 (321) ELT 194 (S.C.) and the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case....