TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon order. 2. Revenue has filed an Early Hearing application No. E/EH/20241/2015. On perusal of the same, we find that the issue involved in appeal No. E/2356/2010 may be covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we allow the Early Hearing and take up the appeal itself for disposal with consent of both sides. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the period 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, it was noticed, on investigation, by the authorities that there was under valuation of goods like Iron and Steel products which were consumed within the factory premises. Appellants are manufacturers of various Iron and Steel products and clear from their factory directly or through their depot. Durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not considering the fact that provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules are for valuation of goods which are not sold. It is his submission that, it is not in dispute that the products for which valuation are being disputed is captively consumed. It is his submission that if we were go through the valuation rules, provisions of rule 11 apply in the case which mandates for best judgment method of valuation; would submit that even by applying the same, the provisions of rule 8 would come into play the value adopted by appellant during the period is correct. He would submit that Board Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.06.2000 specifically clarifies that the valuation of captively consumed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n they had categorically indicated that goods are captively consumed and assessable value is as per the cost of production plus 10% or 15% profit, as mandated. 5. Learned Departmental Representative while reiterating the findings of the lower authorities would submit that provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in the case in hand. He would submit that such rules will come into play only the goods are captively consumed for manufacturing of final products. He would submit that Larger Bench decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd., would be directly applicable in the case in hand. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue on facts is not much disputed inasmuch that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability has been discharged by the appellant on the captively consumed goods. 9. Further, to decide the issue we find that provisions of Rule 8 during the period in question needs reproduction, which were as under: " 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 good." It can be seen from the above reproduced rule that the said rule would come into play when captively consumed goods are used for production or manufacture of other articles. In the case in hand, the factual matrix is that appellant has not consumed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n confirmed by the invoking the extended period is incorrect, we do find strong force in such an argument raised by the Counsel. We find that there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant did discharge the Central Excise duty on the captively consumed goods based upon the cost of production as per his understanding of rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, and may be influenced by the decisions of the Tribunal holding fort during the relevant period. The issue of valuation of captively consumed goods under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, when partly consumed and partly cleared outside the factory premises, had to be decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Limited. Since, there was litigation on the i....