AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of Barges and other floating structures of tariff item 8901 and 8904 which was chargeable to Nil rate of duty. With effect from 01.03.2011 said entry was replaced by 5% Tariff rate. The appellant had manufactured 3 Barges and cleared (two) on 30.03.2011 and (one) on 24.01.2012. On being realized about the duty payable on such goods the appellant applied for Central Excise registration on 23.01.2012 which was issued on 30.03.2012. The appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,97,58,889/- in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the goods used in all the aforesaid 3 barges and out of which they have paid duty of Rs. 1,77,80,904/- on all the 3 barges. Since the appellant have not sold the barges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived in the factory before the manufacture and obtaining registration. The adjudicating authority in the order in original confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,26,60,000/- under section 11 A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The entire credit of Rs. 2,97,58,889/- was demanded under Rule 14 of Central Credit Rules 2004 read with section 11 A (4) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest and imposed penalties. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original. Appellant filed the present appeals. 2. Shri P D Rachchh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have correctly valued the goods i.e. barges in terms of rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived prior to manufacture and taking Central Excise registration Cenvat credit cannot be denied. He further submits that even after payment of duty amount of Rs.1,77,80,904/- there was unutilized credit of Rs. 1,35,94,860/-the same was reversed consequently before exempted. In this regard, no demand sustain whether the differential duty due to valuation dispute or the demand of Cenvat credit. In support of the submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: Swiber Offshore Construction P Ltd Vs. C.C.(Import) Mumbai - 2014 (209) ELT 272 (Tri. Mumbai) Anand Mahindra Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Mumbai - 2008 (228) ELT (Tri. Mumbai) Orient Enterprises, New Delhi Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin - 1986 (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Rule 8 on the basis of costing method based on their ledger and books of account, second, whether the availment of Cenvat credit on the input and input service used in the three barges manufactured by the appellant prior to manufacture of such barges and before obtaining the Central Excise registration is correct or otherwise. As regard the first issue we find that the appellant have valued the barges manufactured by them as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the reason that barges were not sold but used captively by the appellant for providing output service. In this fact, the valuation has to be done correctly under Rule 8 on Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The revenue sought to value the goods on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute that all the input and input service were used in the manufacture of barges therefore even though the same was received before manufacture and even before obtaining the Central Excise registration but so long the input and input service are attributed to the manufacture of barges Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Even the transition provision provided under Cenvat credit rules permits for such credit, accordingly we do not find any reason for denying the Cenvat Credit. Hence the appellant are legally entitled for the Cenvat credit and the duty payment made out of such Cenvat credit is correct and legal. In view of the above we have no doubt in our mind that the valuation of barges manufactured by the appellant in terms of rule 8 of C....