AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt on the Cenvated coating material used in the exempted products for the year 2009-10 19,88,929/- II Non-reversal of appropriate amount on the Cenvated raw materials, filler wire and other consumables for the year 2009-10 7,66,415/- III Undervaluation of the pipes manufactured on job work basis by not properly adopting the value of the material both for duty payment and for 10% reversal for the year 2006-07 7,28,676/- IV Differential duty in accordance with valuation in terms of Rule 10(A)(iii) of the Valuation Rules for the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared to the project customers 40,70,960/- V Differential duty in accordance with valuation in terms of Rule 10(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules for the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared to M/s. Madras Steel Tubes 1,38,985/- VI Ineligible credit availed on inputs exclusively used in the exempted final products for the year 2010-11 41,77,866/- TOTAL 11871831/- 2. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants, inter alia proposing recovery/demand of the aforesaid disputed CENVA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturer can opt not to maintain separate accounts and follow the procedures laid down in that Sub-rule. In this case, although the HR coils were no doubt used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted pipes, however, as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 they can very well opt not to maintain separate accounts. Ld. Advocate also draws our attention to the Tribunal decision in M/s. Honda Motor India Pvt. Ltd . Final Order No. 42826-42827/2017 dated 08.11.2017. Ld. Advocate also submits that the demand is hit by limitation. He points out that the period of demand is 2006-07 to 2010-11 whereas the Show Cause Notice has been issued only on 07.03.2011; that they have filed ER-1 returns throughout the period of dispute and have indicated the amount of CENVAT Credit that has been reversed. He also submits that non-reversal or non-payment of proportionate credit amount on filler ware and other consumables used in the manufacture of pipes was only due to inadvertence. For these reasons he submits that there cannot be any justification for imposition of penalty. Ld. Advocate also submits that they have paid 5% of the value of exempted final product. However, that payment has not been taken into ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.Marico consume it on behalf of appellant. The very same issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra) relied by the appellant. The Tribunal in the said case considered the Board circular F.No. 6/15/2009 dated 31.3.2010. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced for ready reference:- "6. The undisputed fact in these cases is the appellant herein is a job worker manufacturing LABSA for M/s. HUL. It is also undisputed that HUL gives LAB and the appellant uses other consumables in the manufacture of LABSA. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been valuing the said LABSA cleared from factory premises, based upon the cost of material plus processing charges prior to 1-4-2007 when the provisions of Rule 10A were inserted into the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. It is also undisputed that the said LABSA is returned back to M/s. HUL for further consumption in their factory premises for manufacturing of soaps and detergents. It is nobody's case that LABSA consumed by HUL is on behalf of the appellant herein. 7. On these factual matrix we need to appreciate the provisions under Rule 10A, which is reproduced herein und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand, we find that provisions of Rule 10A(i) and (ii) does not arise as has been recorded by us in the earlier paragraphs. Provisions of rule 10A(iii) gets attracted which talks about a situation where 10A(i) or (ii) does not apply. The said provision (iii) very clearly mandate that in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable shall mutatis and mutandis apply for determination of value of the excisable goods. This would indicate that the provisions of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 has to be gone through serially. It is not the Revenue's case that provisions of Rules 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would also apply in this case. Revenue is of the view that provisions of Rule 8 will apply. In order to understand the Revenue's case, we reproduce the provisions of Rule 8. "RULE 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be [one hundred and ten per cent] of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods." 7. The ratio of above decision is applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inputs would be used only in dutiable final products, there is then no need for the appellant to travel beyond Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 ibid. Hence, the appellants cannot then avail credit of inputs used exclusively for exempted final products. Ergo, the appellants should not have availed the credit ab initio. 7.5 Viewed in this light, the action on the part of the appellants to first avail the credit in respect of HR Coils and then adopt the procedure under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 ibid., which, in any case, was not available to them, is definitely a contravention of Rule 6 of the Rules. The appellants would very well be required to reverse the amount of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 41,77,866/- availed in respect of such HR Coils. 7.6 It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for appellant that the appellants have reversed 5% of the value of the exempted goods. Hence, we are of the view that the appellant has to be given adjustment of the amount already reversed as above. For this limited purpose of re-quantification of demand on this issue, after giving adjustment of the amount already reversed by the appellant, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. 8.1 With regard to the issues w....