2018 (4) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 4A as also under Section 4 Valuation. The dispute covers the period September, 2011 to August, 2016 in respect of cement which was captively consumed within the factory. The Central Excise duty on the cement captively consumed was paid by the appellant on the basis of the cost of production of such cement and after adding profit of 10 per cent. The Department was of the view that the duty was required to be paid on such captively consumed goods on the basis of transaction value of cement cleared to independent buyers in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, differential duty of Rs. 46,85,281/- was demanded along with interest and penalties. The same stand confirmed by both the authorities below and aggrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules has been amended w.e.f. 1/12/2013. After such amendment the Rule provides for determination of value of captively consumed goods, on the basis of 110 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. Hence for the period after such amendment we find no infirmity in the duty paid by the appellant and hence differential duty demanded for the period w.e.f. 01/12/2013 is set aside. 8. Now we turn to the differential duty demanded for the period prior to 1/12/2013. 9. We note that similar issue for period prior to 1/12/2013 has come up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore V/s Surya Roshni Ltd 2016-TIOL-3500-CSTAT-Del in which Tribunal observed as under:- 2. We have heard both the sides and perused a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quarely applicable in this case as i the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. the issue of valuation decided by the Honble Apex Court relates to value at the time of import of the goods and not of clearance of indigenously manufactured goods. Similarly, Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. decided the issue relating to transfer of part of final product to sister concern and balance to independent buyers and not the parts & components of the final products as involved in the present case. Similarly, in the case of M/s Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. the Honble CESTAT decided transfer of goods to certain brands to depot and sale therefrom and rest through unrelated buyers, therefore, valuation is to be determined by the best....