TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first schedule Central Excise Act 1985, discharged the central excise duty on the clearances made to their own unit at Patancheru under proper invoices on payment of duty based upon the assessable value declared therein as a sale. It was noticed by the lower authorities that assessable value is not correct, sales to their own unit has to be treated as captive consumption and resultantly a show cause notice was issued for demand of the differential duty on the ground that the value that needs to be applied by the appellant is cost of production plus 15%. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the lower authority and after following due process of law, an amount as differntial duty was confirmed along with interest and a penalty wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice and submit that the show cause notice is demanding the differential duty only on the basis of the goods being cleared from appellants unit to their own unit for captive consumption and is not a sale, needs to be valued at the cost of production plus 15% as per Rule 8 of valuation rules. Having not done so, the differential duty demand is correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority. It is her further submission that question of revenue neutrality defence could be only for non-invokation of extended period for the demand of the duty, while in the case in hand, the demand of the duty is within the normal period of limitation. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue is regarding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is correct as Tribunal in the case of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., (Supra) (wherein one of us Shri M.V. Ravindran was a Member) in para no. 8 held as under: 8. On perusal of records, we find that during the relevant period i.e. that April-2003 to December-2005 that the appellant was discharging duty on the goods manufactured and cleared for further use by their sister concerns by adopting valuation under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The valuation which has been adopted by the appellant was being erroneous, as confirmed from the facts that the appellant has paid the duty liability on being pointed out. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of Ld.C.A. that question of demanding interest or p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard Learned Counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not dealing with the aspect of undervaluation of goods manufactured by assessee despite the fact that the Adjudicating Authority had discussed the said issue at length in the adjudication order. 3. As can be seen from order of the Tribunal dated 10-11-2008 impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal holding that the goods manufactured by the assessee were being cleared to its own sister concern, who is availing the benefit of Modvat Credit. The Tribunal has further found that as such whatever duty the assessee was paying was available as credit to its own unit (sister concern) and hence the entire exercise was revenue n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the above proposition, reliance is placed upon the various decisions. 3. Dr. M.K. Razak, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the fact that the duty now being raised and confirmed against the present assessee was available as credit to their own unit, should not be made ground for setting aside the demand against the appellant. It stand strongly contended before us that the issue before Tribunal is only to adjudge the correct assessable value of the goods cleared from the appellant's factory and their liability to pay differential duty. In as much as the appellants have admitted that there was undervaluation in respect of the fabrics, demand should be confirmed against them. 4. After carefully considering the submissions m....