TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 57-60/Commissioner/LKO/CX/2009 dated 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as follows:- S. No. SCN No. & Date Unit of 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 wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entire operation carried out in respect of job work was within the knowledge of the Department/Revenue and therefore, 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 appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit Rules, 2004. Further, the said Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for collection of amount equal to 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 fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (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....