2018 (12) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of M.S.Ingots. They have also another Division (Unit II) in the adjacent premises, in which, the ingots manufactured in Unit II are received on payment of duty and used for further manufacture of hot rolled products. The dispute, which is for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08, is regarding the valuation to be adopted for duty payment on stock transfer of goods from Unit I to Unit II. From 2008 onwards, Unit I & Unit II were merged together and a common registration was taken from the Central Excise Department. The Department was of the view that the clearance of goods from Unit I to Unit II is required to be valued on the basis of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, inasmuch as there is no sale. Show-cause notice da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period 2003-04 with the submission that the clearance of goods from Unit I to Unit II is essentially a situation of revenue neutrality. They have submitted that any differential duty paid by Unit I will be available to Unit II as cenvat credit and hence there is no justification for demand of Central Excise duty. Both the appeals are being taken up together for a decision through this common order. 6. In this connection, we have heard Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, ld.D.R. for Revenue as well as Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant for the Appellant. 7. The ld.D.R. reiterated the grounds of appeals. 8. The ld.Consultant for the assessee on the other hand, pressed the grounds of appeals of the assessee. He also submitted that the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent buyers in addition to clearance to sister concern, the valuation can be done on the basis of value of clearance made to independent buyers. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has expressed the view that in such cases, there will be no need to adopt the valuation as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and Rule 4 ibid, will apply in such cases. We find that the adjudicating authority has followed the decision of the Larger Bench in dropping the demand of differential duty for the period 2004-2008. The observation of the Larger Bench in the above cases is reproduced below : "9. In view of what we have observed above, we answer the reference in the following terms : (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will....