TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t buyers. The case of the department is that the waste/ scrap captively consumed in the manufacture of PP Granules, the valuation was not properly done as the same should have been done in accordance with CAS-4 standards prepared by Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI). It was also observed that as per Rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods), 2000 when the goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of such other articles, the value shall be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. Thus, the valuation of such scrap is wrongly adopted by the Appellant and it is in accordance with the Provision of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the periodical show cause notices were issued. Those show cause notices have been adjudicated wherein the difference of duty demand was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the orders-in-original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were rejected, hence the present appeals. 2. Shri Ambarish Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting Authority did not accept that the sale price of waste and scrap charged to independent customer should be applied in the case of captive consumption. 8. The Learned Counsel vehemently argued that the nature of the scrap whether it is different for captive consumption and for independent sale was not the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice and therefore, the said issue should not have been taken in the Adjudication Order. 9. We find that in the Show Cause Notice the fact was narrated which is reproduced below....... "In the present case, the assessee uses waste/scrap generated at intermediate stage for captive consumption in the manufacture of PP granules which are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 or 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. It appears that the exemption under notification number 67/95-CE, therefore, is not available to such quantity of waste/scrap captively consumed. The assessee are, therefore, paying duty at applicable rates on such waste/scrap. However, the value of such captively consumed waste/scrap is worked out by them at the price at which such goods are sold by them to independent buyers.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable 2130 13 5 1943/27.10.2003 waste - scrap of plastic Captive FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION 2000 16.5 6 1878/20.10.2008 End waste sale to customers not applicable 1910 19 End waste not applicable 2260 15 7 3143/26.02.2004 waste - scrap of plastic Captive waste to RPG for rpg sale to ext customer 4000 16.5 8 3072/16.02.2004 End waste - Transparent sale to customers not applicable 1040 21 End waste - White not applicable 265 8.25 End waste White not applicable 2860 17 9 418/30.5.2004 Waste and Scrap of Plastic Captive waste to RPG for rpg sale to ext customer 2700 19.8 10 478/5.6.2004 End waste - White sale to customers not applicable 3880 24 11 1867/1.12.2004 waste - scrap of plastic Captive waste to RPG for rpg sale to ext customer 2800 41.8 12 1915/8.12.2004 End waste White sale to customers not applicable 2030 29 13 1981/17.12.2004 waste - scrap of plastic Captive waste to RPG for rpg sale to ext customer 3600 30.53 14 1984/17.12.2004 End waste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to another factory for consumption in the manufacture of other articles on behalf of the assessee. In this case, it is not the case of the revenue that the goods were transferred to other units for manufacture of other articles on behalf of the assessee/appellant, i.e. the Dolvi Unit. We agree with the assessee's contention that the expression '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. 6. We also note that in the present case the application of Rule 4 is being disputed by the Revenue not on the ground that the said rule is inapplicable to the present case but on the ground that a more specific provision in Rule 8 is available to enable determination of the....