TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30/09/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. Therefore, these are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were having two manufacturing units. One located at A-4/1, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Mathura which is called Unit No. II and another at A-5 & C-7, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Mathura which is called Unit No. III. Both the units were having separate independent registration with Central Excise Department. They were also availing facility of Cenvat credit. Both the units were engaged in manufacture of Metalized Polyester Film falling under Tariff Item No. 39219093 of the first Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants also undertook job work of Metalli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Noticee Period Amount/Duty involved (in Rs.) In r/o job-work In r/o stock transfer Total 01. 02/Commr./LKO/08-09 dt. 17.06.08 Unit No. II 2003-04 to 2007-08 2,86,41,271.00 1,10,30,517.00 3,96,71,788.00 02. 12/Commr./LKO/08-09 dt. 11.11.08 Unit No. III 2003-04 to 2007-08 4,30,44,884.00 3,95,79,868.00 8,26,24,752.00 03. 04/Commr./LKO/09-10 dt. 01.05.09 Unit No. II 2008-09 (upto Jan. 09) 1,39,80,219.00 19,12,091.00 1,58,92,310.00 04. 05/Commr./LKO/09-10 dt. 01.05.09 Unit No. III 2008-09 (upto Jan. 09) 4,37,86,627.00 86,91,111.00 5,24,77,738.00 The total demand in respect of job work in the Show Cause Notice dated 17/06/2008 was Rs. 2,86,41271/- and similarly demands in respect of job work in other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no suppression and therefore the extended period of limitation was not invokable in respect of the demand of short payment on account of stock transfer. They submitted that they were selling their goods from the factory gate to independent unrelated buyers as well as captively consumed stock transferred to their own unit and that provisions of Rule 8 were applicable where the entire production was captively consumed by the buyer and relied upon the decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported at 2007 (02) L.C.X. 0003. The Original Authority did not appreciate the grounds putforth and confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,26,21,490/- under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 to 10% of the value at which such goods are sold. The fact is that the said goods were never sold and they were returned after the process of job work. Further, if the goods were emerging out of processing were ultimately exempted goods then there was no requirement of following procedure under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986 in respect of the same. The fact is that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner accepted the declaration under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/03/1986, having jurisdiction over the principal manufacturer and allowing permission to the principal manufacturer and the appellant following the procedure of movement of semi-finished goods on Challan itself established beyond doubt that the goods ultimat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(b) The provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944." He has further submitted that the Show Cause Notices for demand of duty under Rule 8 did not follow the prescribed procedure of arriving at assessable value on CAS-4 Certificate in violation of standing instructions of C.B.E.C. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for, who has supported the impugned com....