TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at 110% of the cost of production or under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at the value at which same goods are cleared to independent buyers (ii) Whether the demand of duty is sustainable when the entire situation is revenue neutral in nature. (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in the facts of the present case. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that even though the confirmation of demand on merit is correct, the same is not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality. He submits that any differential excise duty paid by their Clinker Unit would be available as cenvat cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time and monthly returns have been filed regularly by the appellant. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:- • CCE, Bangalore vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd - 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC) • Apex Electricals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj.) • Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CCE - 2017 (9) ELT 694 (Guj.) • CCE, Indore vs. ZYG Pharma Pvt Ltd - 2017 (358) ELT 101(MP) • Vandana Global Ltd vs. CCE, Raipur - 2022 (12) TMI 450- CESTAT New Delhi 2.2 He further submits that further omission to inform does not amount to suppression of fact and the appellants are under the bonafide belief that the goods are liable to be valued at cost of production meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to their own grinding unit where the same is used in the manufacture of cement and the cement so manufactured is cleared on payment of duty, therefore, whatever duty paid on the clinker the same is available as cenvat credit to the clinker unit. Therefore, since there is no gain or loss to the appellant, the situation is revenue neutral, hence, malafide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. 4.1 Moreover, though during the relevant period i.e. March, 2011 to November,2013 both the units i.e. clinker and grinding unit were separately registered but from May, 2016 both the clinker unit and grinding unit have been granted common Central Excise registration and separate registration of clinker unit was surrendered. This shows that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 to November,2013 for which the show cause notice was issued on 18.03.2016, thus, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. We find that the appellant have been filing their monthly return from time to time declaring all the details in the returns and the fact is on record that the appellants are clearing clinker to their own grinding unit, valuing the goods under Rule 8 i.e. 110% of the cost of manufacture. It is also observed that even when rule 8 was amended with effect from 01.12.2013 then also the department has not woken up to issue the show cause notice, therefore, it is absolutely clear that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. In this regard the following judgments, which were relied u....