2024 (1) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lgaum. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, they cleared the clinker and cement in bulk to their sister unit determining its assessable value under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Alleging that the method of assessment of goods cleared to their sister unit is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs.12,83,54,239/- for the period from 01.03.2008 to 31.07.2009 with interest and penalty. On adjud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2010. In the circumstances, the proposal to demand of duty prior to April 2009 under proviso to Section 11A of the Act is liable to be dropped. I confirm the demand from April 2009 onwards. The total duty for this period is Rs.1,52,83,885/- (including EC and S&II EC) as detailed in the enclosed Annexure." 6. We find that this Tribunal in similar circumstances, involving the same items namely clinkers and bulk cements in UltraTech Cement Ltd vs CCE, Belgaum (Appeal No. E/23715/2014) vide Final Order No. 21426/2023 dt. 22.12.2023 even though upheld the method of assessment to be under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 but following the principle laid down in the below mentioned case restricted the demand....