TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taining to the appellant as detailed below. Sl No. Period involved Order-in-Original No. & Date Amount involved (Rs.) Appeal No. / Date 1. 2004-2005 36/2012 dt 24.12.2012 3,60,96,503/- 14/2013 (M-I) dt 28.02.2013 2. 2005-2006 37/2012 dt 24.12.2012 3,72,60,594/- 13/2013 (M-I) dt 28.02.2013 3. 2006-2007 38/2012 dt 24.12.2012 3,62,23,605/- 15/2013 (M-I) dt 28.02.2013 TOTAL 10,95,80,702/- 3. The points for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the above orders, which are also the points for determination listed in the appeal, are as under:- (i) Whether or not the IDSC debit notes would form part of the cost of paper and paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arette factories, where the same were used for the manufacture of cigarettes, and also to the appellant's units engaged in other business which used the same in the manufacture of their respective goods like food, agarbathi, clothes, etc. 6. The three issues on which the demand for differential duty was confirmed by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner have since been decided in the appellant's favour by the Tribunal Vide Final Order No. 40094/2023 dated 28.2.2023 in respect of the period 2001 - 2003 - 04 involving identical facts. She drew our attention to the interim order dated 11.2.2014 and subsequent interim order dated 12.2.2016. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that all the three issues on merits stood covered by the orders of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 was as to whether the demand was barred by limitation; the Tribunal at paragraph 8.1 of its order had observed that as the Issues No. 1 and 3 were decided on merits and the Issue No. 2 having been referred to the Larger Bench, there was no requirement to discuss the issue of limitation and penalty. 3. The Issue No. 2, which was referred to the Larger Bench, reads as under:- "(i) Whether, in the case of inter-unit transfer of goods for captive consumption, the entire value (i.e. 115% / 110% of the cost of production) OR the actual cost of production (i.e. 100% of cost) excluding notional loading (i.e. 15% / 10%) of the goods manufactured by the one unit, would be the cost of raw material of the another unit (who used the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Chennai unit. The percentage of loading on such cost of production, mandated by provisions of Rule 8 for remittance of excise duty by the Bhadrachalam unit cannot not however be considered as comprised in the cost of the raw material consumed for manufacture of packaging material and thus constituting the cost of production at the Chennai unit; (b) In view of the conclusions recorded in (a) above, we hold that the decision of the Chennai Division Bench of CESTAT in the Final Order dt. 11.5.2010 in Revenue's appeal in Eveready Industries and the subsequent decision of the same Regional Bench in the judgment reported in 2011 (274) ELT 564 represent the correct position in law. The decision of the Mumbai Division Bench in Tata Ir....