2018 (10) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndum dated 23/01/2007, thereby increasing the proposed demand from Rs. 41-50 Lakhs, what shall be the period of limitation and consequently under the facts and circumstances the situation being wholly revenue neutral, whether the Show Cause Notice is tenable for change of opinion. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company, located in Muzaffarnagar (U. P.), is engaged in the manufacture of Base Filter Paper. 95% of this filter paper is transferred to their sister unit in Faridabad for captive consumption in the manufacture of different sizes of filter. The remaining 5% is sold to independent buyers at the factory gate. 3. The other two appellants in this case are Shri T. K. Tiwari, Works Manager in the appellant com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal against impugned order on the following lines:- 7.1 The Department has accepted that the appellant company has at least 5% sales of their products, namely, Base Filter Paper, to independent buyers. On this issue the Courts have consistently held that if a party partly consumes a manufactured goods captively in their factory or in another factory of theirs, and partly sells them to independent buyers, Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, will not apply. This Rule will apply only if all (i.e. 100%) of their manufactured product is captively consumed. This principle was discussed and upheld by the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus CCE, Raigarh - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.- LB). This d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period involved in the show cause notice is July, 2000 to March, 2005, which is beyond the normal period of one year from the relevant period. 7.7 The Department has held that the costing data adopted by the appellant company was incorrect. It is submitted that the departmental officers are not technically qualified to pass such judgments/comments. In fact, precisely for this purpose, an Assistant/Deputy Director (Costs) is posted in every Central Excise Zone for advising the Departmental officers on such technical matters. There is no evidence to show that the department either sought the assistance of the said AD/DD (Costs) or that of any other Cost/Chartered Accountant. 7.8 When the case against the appellant company does not surv....