TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Representative for Respondent ORDER Per : P A Augustian The issue in the present appeals is whether the valuation of goods sold by the appellant from their depot during the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2012 is covered under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2. The brief facts are the appellants are manufacturing plastic water storage tanks and selling 90% of their production at the factory gate to independent buyers and were paying duty on such transaction value. As regards the balance quantity, they transferred the same to their depot in Tamil Nadu on which they were paying duty on the basis of the price charged to independent buyers at the factory gate. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 09/2013 CE dated 31.10.2013 77,51,663/- 1,98,25,708/- 3,46,004/- 3,67,917/- 7,13,923/- do 3. Thereafter, Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and aggrieved by the said orders, appeals were filed before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-In-Appeal dated 12.03.2018 upheld the Order-In-Original, however for the first period restricted the demands for normal period and also set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. Further for the period 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013 Show Cause Notice dated 27.012.2014 was issued and the adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand vide order-in-original dated 15.01.2015 and on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 12.03.2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depot. Hence, valuation under Rule 7 is not applicable in the appellant's case. 7. Learned Consultant further submits that the issue is no more res integra. Larger Bench considered the issue in the matter of ISPAT INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. RAIGAD - 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI-LB and it is held that; "5. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that the assessee is correct in contending that provisions of Rule 8 would apply only in a case where its entire production of a particular commodity is captively consumed. This is evident on a plain reading of Rule 8 of the valuation rules, which reads as under "Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee', wherever it appears in the Central Excise Rules, applies to a particular factory, which is why different units belonging to one company are separately registered and separately assessed to duty. Since the assessee in the present case is the Dolvi plant and it is not the revenue's case that the other three units of the company to whom HR coils were transferred were undertaking further manufacturing operations on behalf of the Dolvi Unit, the provisions of Rule 8 will not apply. We, therefore, hold that Rule 8 is inapplicable in the instant case." 8. Learned Consultant further submits that the very same issue was also considered by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Bo....