2024 (6) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cement. The appellant had discharged duty on the basis of 110% of cost of production as per Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 with regard to the captively consumed goods and warranty replacements and the value adopted was between Rs.1,520/- and Rs.1,653/-. The goods which were removed to their various service centres, the value adopted was Rs.3,531/-on the basis of sale value at the service centre. 2. The issue under dispute was whether clearance of electrical motors captively used are required to be followed in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 or in terms of Rule 4 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 adopting the price cleared at the time of removal from the factory. From the amended Rule, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Dec. 2007 28.04.2008 Normal period 2 E/3191/2011 No.145/2008 dt. 2.12.2008 Jun. 2006 to Mar. 2007 05.12.2008 Extended period invoked 3 E/3191/2011 No.16/2009 dt. 29.1.2009 Jan. 2008 to June 2008 02.02.2009 Extended period invoked 4 E/3191/2011 No.105/2009 dt. 4.8.2009 July 2008 to March 2008 07.08.2009 Extended period invoked 5 E/3190/2011 No.16/2010 dt. 22.4.2010 April 2009 to Jan. 2010 30.04.2010 Extended period invoked It is submitted that show-cause notice at Sl. No.1 extended period was not invoked. In show-cause notices at Sl. No.2 to 4, extended period was invoked. It is further submitted that it is a settled law that once a show-cause notice is issued f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad: 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB), it is a settled law that the appellant should have taken the value of the spares market for all the clearances of captive consumption as well as warranty replacements. Therefore, as far as demand is concerned, it has to be upheld and as admitted by the appellant demands are being upheld. The only question is now with regard to limitation and cum-duty benefit. 5.1 As seen in para 3.1, show-cause notice dated 22.4.2008 demanded an amount of Rs.3,58,261/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB and penalty was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thereafter, show-cause notice....