TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2.1 The job-workers used the said goods for further manufacturing, by undertaking the processes of say-cutting, rolling, reeling, colour coding, etc. and supplied the job-worked goods back to the appellant on payment of duty. 2.2 Based on scrutiny of the documents, a show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant, proposing differential duty for the period July 2000 to December 2004 on the ground that the assessable value of the goods cleared to job workers ought to be computed in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 r/w Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act,1944. 2.3 The matter was adjudicated and the demand of duty was confirmed. 2.4 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 2.5 In the meantime, in terms of the Honb'le Supreme Court's order in the two cases of ONGC v Collector, reported at 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.), the appellant applied for clearance from Committee of Disputes, to litigate the matter. The Committee of Dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be revenue neutral or not ? 8. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Limited (supra), wherein we find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal is whether there is revenue neutral situation in the facts and circumstances or not, which is not the issue in hand before us. Therefore, the same decision is not relevant to the facts of this case. 9. We find that it is an admitted fact that it is a case of revenue neutrality, which means whatever duty has been paid by the appellant and the same is entitled as cenvat credit to the appellants themselves. 10. As it is a revenue neutral situation, we hold that no interest is payable by the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Jai Balaji Industries Limited (supra) wherein it has been held as under : "15. As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & C, Vadodara-II v. Indeos Abs Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], in case the goods were cleared to their own sister concern, which is availing benefit of the Modvat Credit, hence the entire exercise is revenue neutral. Although the appellant paid differential duty later on, but same was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant, but the appellant contested the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant filed a refund claim of the said recovered amount of Rs.15,65,36,574/- confirmed by the order dated 31.03.2006. The said refund claim was rejected. 13.3 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 14. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire basis of prescribing the mechanism of Committee of Dispute has been wrongly understood by the Department in the present proceedings. It is his submission that once matter goes before the Committee of Dispute, the operation of the order under challenge got suspended. Further, for the purpose of going before the Committee of Dispute is not merely for the appellant to get approval or rejection regarding its right to file appeal. The purpose is also the resolution by effective conciliation of dispute between the PSUs and the Union of India, represented by Ministries or their agencies. Such resolution wherein the Committee of Disputes does not require the matter to be litigated, does not necessarily means confirmation of demand against the assessee in tax matters. Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supported the impugned order. 16. After hearing the parties, we find the order dated 31.03.2006, was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order No. S -519/A-1148/Kol/2007 dated 11.06.2007 passed the following orders : On going through the said order of the Tribunal, in Paragraph (3) states that - " 3. From the above clearance given by COD, it is seen that the appellants have been allowed to pursue their appeal in respect of penalty only. As such, the appeal filed by them in regard to duty demand is dismissed as non-maintainable." 17. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant in regard to duty of demand is dismissed as not maintainable by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2007 and the said part of the order of this Tribunal was never challenged by the appellant. 18. In that circumstances, the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 31.03.2006 was confirmed by this Tribunal vide its Order dated 11.06.2007. 19. In that circumstances, as the order of the Tribunal was never challenged by the appellant qua confirmation of demand of duty, we hold that that the refund claims are not maintainable. Accordingly, the same are rejected. ....