2017 (8) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Mills, Unit D on payment of duty on the value declared by them in their invoices during the period from 05/2003 to 07/2004. Since there is no sale involved in this case, the valuation of the goods has to be done in terms of Section 4 (1) (b) read with Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. As per Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 they have to adopt the value at 115% of the cost price upto 8/03 and at 110% of the cost price from 09/03 for their cotton yarn of different counts cleared to their sister unit. Therefore, the appellants was requested to produce a cost certificate showing the cost of production of yarn of various counts manufactured and cleared to their sister concern namely M/s.Super Spinning Mills, Unit D. On per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellants were issued Show Cause Notice alleging the above, and after due process of law, original authority confirmed duty demand of Rs. 6,13,009/- alongwith interest and also imposed equal penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 4. On behalf of appellant, Learned Counsel Shri Santhana Gopal made the following main submissions : 4.1 The appellant was doubling various counts of yarn like 20 counts, 30 counts, 40 counts, etc. The assessable value is disputed only for certain counts of yarn in some months. The annexure to the Show Cause Notice disputes for the counts of 2/30, 2/38, 2/38 zari, 2/40 and 2/40 zari pertaining to the months May, 2003 to July, 2004. The dispute is confined to few varieti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oubled yarn was used in manufacture and export from unit D or sold in India on payment of excise duty. Thus, even if the differential excise duty of Rs. 6,13,009/- is payable, it is available as credit to the recipient unit 'D'. Therefore, no revenue loss had occurred to the government on account of the alleged lesser valuation. 4.6 It is an admitted position that the excise duty paid by appellant was taken as Cenvat credit at the recipient unit 'D'. Thus, the demand of excise duty is also available as Cenvat credit at the recipient unit. When whatever excise duty paid is available to the appellant himself at the recipient unit, it cannot be said that the differential excise duty was not paid with intention to evade payment....