TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... & Date Duty demanded Penalty imposed Barred by limitation 1 E/762/2011 07.04.2010 April 2009 to July 2009 OIO No. 02/2011 dated 07.01.2011 Rs. 1,52,83,885/- - - 2 E/938/2012 25.01.2011 January 2010 to November 2010 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 13,93,772/- Rs. 13,39,772/- - 3 E/939/2012 10.03.2010 March 2008 to May 2009 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 16,74,205/- Rs. 16,74,205/- March 2008 to February 2009 4 E/940/2012 25.06.2010 June 2009 to December 2009 OIA No. 115/2012 dated 01.03.2012 Rs. 10,62,350/- Rs. 5,00,000/- - 5 E/3301/2012 27.08.2010 August 2009 to April 2010 OIA No. 504/2012 dated 03.10.2012 Rs. 28,39,876/- - - 6 E/3302/2012 30.12.2011 December 2010 to October 2011 OIA No.501/2012 dated 03.10.2012 Rs.24,58,484/- Rs.1,00,000/- 7 E/26475/2013 03.04.2012 March 2011 to December 2011 OIO No.06/2013 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.5,15,19,634/- Rs.60,00,000/- - 8 E/23319/2014 30.01.2014 March 2013 to August 2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....comparable prices of clearances be applied over the value adopted for clearance of cement to their sister units, on which duty has been paid. Further, he has submitted that the appellant has rightly applied Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, since the quantity of cement on which differential duty has been proposed to be demanded, was not sold by the appellant, but was stock transferred to their own sister unit for captive consumption in the manufacture of cement. Further, in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 the assessable value of goods has to be determined in respect of each of the clearances and not on the basis of the conceptual value of the goods sold in another transaction. In support, they have placed reliance on the Board's Circular dated 30.06.2000 and Circular dated 01.07.2002. Further, it is submitted that though order has been passed by the Tribunal in appellant's own case in Final Order No.21426/2023 observing that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 be applicable, however, the said order has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod demanding differential duty cannot be sustained for the period March 2008 to February 2009. Further it is submitted that since the issue relates to interpretation of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and the differential duty payable is admissible to their sister unit as credit hence, imposition of penalty also not sustainable. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is, during the period in question i.e., from April 2004 to December 2012, the clinkers transferred by the appellant to their sister concern to be valued under Rule 4 or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. This Tribunal in appellant's own case for their own unit for the period from March 2011 to November 2013 held that Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 be adopted following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, as reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561, wherein the Court applied "The Gunapradhan Principle" in interpreting the Customs Valuation Rules. We have kept in mind the following observations of the Court in coming to our above conclusion: "26. In our opinion if there are two possible interpretations of a rule, one which subserves the object of a provision in the parent statute and the other which does not, we have to adopt the former, because adopting the latter will make the rule ultra vires the Act. 27.................. 36. In our opinion, the Gunapradhan principle is fully applicable to the interpretation of Rule 9(2). Rule 9(2) is subservient to Section 14. We must, therefore, interpret it in such a way as to make it in accordance with the main object that is contained in Section 14 of the Customs Act. It may be that in isolation Rule 9(2) conveys some other meaning, but when it is read along with Section 14 of the Act, it must be given a meaning which is in accordance with the object of Section 14. The object of Section 14 is 'primary' whereas the conditions in Rule 9 (2) are the 'accessories'. The 'accessory' must, therefore, serve the 'primary'." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was clear intention to evade the Excise duty. His submission was that the clearance of the goods which were sold at the factory gate were totally different as they differed in technical specifications from those removed for captive consumption which was confirmed by the appellant itself vide its letter dated 21-2-2000 and this would depict clear intention on the part of the appellant to remove the goods by paying lesser duty. 9. We have ourselves indicated that the two types of goods were different in nature. The question is about the intention, namely, whether it was done with bona fide belief or there was some mala fide intentions in doing so. It is here we agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in the circumstances which are explained by him and recorded above. It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty." Their Lordships in the facts of said case observing revenue neutrality as a factor to analyze and appreciate the intention of the parties for non-adherence to the correct method of valuation and held that there could ....