TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Valuation Rules'), viz. independent sale price of such goods. However, the department vide the following two Show Cause Notices alleged that Rule 8 of Valuation Rules was applicable on such clearances, and the Appellant was liable to pay the differential excise duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, as demanded: • SCN C. No. II (8) 25/AE/CE/BOL/2006/8246 dt. 02/08/2007 proposing demand of excise duty of Rs. 26,30,268/- for the period July 2006 to August 2006; • SCN C. No. II (8) 25/AE/CE/BOL/2006/11067 dt. 14/09/2007 proposing demand of excise duty of Rs. 2,37,82,742/- for the period January 2005 to June 2006. 2. The Show Cause notices were adjudicated vide the common Order in Original No. 44-45/Commr/BOL/09 dated 27.02.2009 wherein the proposed demands were confirmed. In the course of adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner agreed with the proposition that in case identical supplies were made to the independent buyers as well as job workers, Rule 4 was applicable. However, to ascertain whether the same goods which were sent by the Appellant to the job workers were also sold to indep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to independent buyers & where CAS-4 price is less than the stock transfer value. Annexure 9 - Not sold to independent buyers & where CAS-4 price is higher than the stock transfer value. 4. In some of these annexures, the Appellant appeared to have paid excess duty than was due and in others, short payment. Based on the above fact-finding report, the Ld. Commissioner ignored the Annexures which showed excess payment of duty and confirmed the demand in relation to the Annexures which showed short payment. Thus, in terms of the OIO dated 27.02.2009, the Appellant was held liable for payment of excise duty of Rs. 21,65,587/- in respect of SCN dated 02.08.2007 and Rs. 1,31,59,371/- in respect of SCN dated 14.09.2007, along with interest and equal penalty. 5. The Appellant being aggrieved by such order is before us. 6. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that: • Since there was no sale transaction between the Appellant and job-workers, therefore, transaction value was not available, and the valuation needed to be adopted in terms of the Valuation Rules. The Appellant valued the goods at the comparable values at which the said goods were sold to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pr. Commr. of CGST & CE Vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. 2019 (367) ELT 985 (MP); • Jindal Steel & Power4 Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I 2016 (342) ELT 253 (Tri.-Del.); • Suzlon Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, & ST Vadodara 2016 (339) ELT 87 (Tri.-Ahmd.); • Vinir Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2004 (168) ELT 34 (Tri.-Bang.); • Angadpal Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-II 2012 (280) ELT 542 (Tri.-Mum.); • ToyotaKirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, LTU Bang. 2012 (276) ELT 332 (Kar.); • Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (336) ELT 328 (Tri.-Del.); • Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2017 (345) ELT 139 (Tri.-Del.); • SangamSpinners Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II 2016 (344) ELT 623 (Tri.-Del.) • The entire issue is revenue neutral in nature as the job worker of the Appellant is eligible to claim CENVAT Credit on the duty paid by the Appellant and the Appellant further avails the Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the job-worker. Thus, in such a scenario demand is not sustainable as held by: • Cce, Pune Vs. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) Elt 490 (S.C.); ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty paid against the short payment, prior to raising any demand on the Appellant. We are in agreement with the long range of judgments referred to by the Appellant wherein such adjustment has been allowed in the context of identical matters, matters involving CAS-4 valuation, matters involving provisional assessment and matters involving SSI exemptions. Some of the judgments which are directly applicable to the present case are referred hereunder: (a) Pr. Commr. of CGST & CE Vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. 2019 (367) ELT 985 (MP) - wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the Tribunal's order relying on the following observations made in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2017 (345) ELT 139 (Tribunal): "10. The next issue for decision is on the quantification of differential duty. Even though there is no provisional assessment in the present case, the duty determination on the inter-unit transfer is made on annual costing. As such when the Department arrived at cost on annual average basis the duty liability, excess or shortage has also to be determined on such basis. It is not tenable while for arriving at per unit duty liability the whole year data is ....