AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are that the appellant has integrated steel plants and carries on the manufacture of various iron and steel and allied products. 2.1 The present dispute relates to the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) of the appellant situated at Durgapur in the State of West Bengal. 2.2 The appellant is duly registered with the respondent and carrying out manufacturing activity. 2.3 DSP clears excisable goods manufactured by it to its unit under Steel Authority of India including to its sister units, Alloy Steel Plant (ASP) and Indian Iron and Steel Company (IISCO) at Burnpur, both in the State of West Bengal. Such goods are cleared to the said sister units for further processing on the basis of prevailing transaction value of similar g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 5. We find that the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : " Whether the appellant has paid the duty correctly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules 7. We find that the Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003 is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the same is extracted below : "Valuation (Central Excise) - Captive consumption - Cost of production to be in accordance with CAS-4 Circular No. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for captively consumed goods. 5. This Circular may be brought to the notice of the field formations. 6. Suitable Trade Notices may be issued for the benefit of the Trade. 7. Hindi version will follow. 8. Receipt of these instructions may be acknowledged." In view of the above, the Circular clarified the position that the cost of production of captively consumed goods will be done strictly in accordance with CAS-4. Admittedly, in this case also, the appellant has adopted the above said Circular and was paying duty as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. 8. Further, in the appellant's own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2005, has obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d". Since the earlier instruction is to be deemed to be modified, it would not be permissible to apply them without the said modification. The appellant-assessees are also right in their contention that Revenue is bound by the Circular; while assessees are at liberty to contest the circulars. Therefore, in pending matters, the assessee can seek determination of his case under a later beneficial circular by pointing out that instructions contained in the earlier circulars are incorrect and the matter should be settled according to "general principles" developed by an authority competent to lay down standards. Tribunal and Courts are duty bound to consider such a contention. This position enunciated in the judgment of the High Court of Calcut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the present case. As stated above, in the present case, the Assistant Collector had taken a prima facie view for purposes of reclassification as far back as 17-12-1993. Therefore, the Circular dated 14-7-1994 had no application to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer (supra) did not deal with the case where the department had issued show cause notice purporting to reclassify the product prior to the issuance of Instructions by the Board. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case." The ratio of this judgment is that a legally sustainable claim, which had been raised by the Revenue prior to and independently of a circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/8/2003, dated 13-2-2003." The said order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2016. 9. The Revenue sought to distinguish the decision of their own case for the earlier period on the ground that in the case of Ispat Industries (supra), the Larger Bench of this Tribunal held that the assessable goods transferred to another plant of the same assesse is required to determine the value as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules as the goods were sold to the independent buyers also. 10. We find that said decision is distinguishable on the facts of the case, as in that case, the goods were cleared to another plant not for captive consumption whereas in the case in hand, the goods in question have been c....