TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Appeal No. 396 of 2006 with Excise Appeal No. 914 of 2011 (M/s Steel Authority of India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur), whereby the Tribunal held that no interest was payable by the assessee on the confirmed duty demand on the ground of revenue neutrality and accordingly, set aside the demand of interest while rejecting the assessee's refund claim. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapters 72, 73 and 86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and holds Central Excise Registration No. AAACS7062FXM025. The assessee manufactures iron and steel products such as billets, rounds and HT bars, which are cleared to va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rule squarely covering the situation, Rule 11 (the residuary rule) read with Section 4(1)(a) must be applied so that the value of goods cleared to job workers is determined on the basis of the transaction value of similar goods sold to independent buyers at the factory gate. The department further relied on the scheme of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, Rule 8 and the earlier Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules, 1975, CBEC Circular No. 258/92/96-CX dated October 30, 1996 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 2000, to contend that even where goods are not sold, valuation aims to approximate the value that would have been realized had there been a sale, by reference to comparable goods or cost-based methods brought as close as possible to Section 4(1)(a) value. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d through a refund proceeding. The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated July 28, 2011, upheld the rejection. Against the said appellate order, the assessee filed Excise Appeal No. 914 of 2011 before the Tribunal. 7. Meanwhile, the Tribunal's earlier order dated June 11, 2007 in Excise Appeal No. 396 of 2006 was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which by order dated July 28, 2022 restored the appeal to the Tribunal with a limited remit to decide only the question of interest. Upon remand, the Tribunal heard together Excise Appeal No. 396 of 2006 (on interest) and Excise Appeal No. 914 of 2011 (on refund) and by its composite order dated September 15, 2023 (bearing Nos. 76646-76645/2023) held that the assessee was not liable to pay i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as a ground to waive statutory interest, whereas the concept of revenue neutrality has relevance, if at all, to limitation or to the existence of duty liability but not to the levy of interest once duty is admittedly paid belatedly. It is submitted that interest is inbuilt and ancillary to the duty, once the principal duty liability is established and paid after the due date, interest automatically follows and cannot be waived merely because the recipient unit could have availed Cenvat credit. It is further urged that the Tribunal erred in blindly applying its earlier decision in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur reported in 2023 (6) TMI 1102 (CESTAT Kolkata), which was rendered on its own facts and in which, according to the revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se duty accordingly, resulting in payment of duty on a higher assessable value than legally payable, thereby leading to excess duty payment which is refundable. 12. The respondent/assessee further pleaded that the revenue had not produced any cogent evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, as all requisite RT-12 returns and other documents had been duly submitted to the department, rendering invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Accordingly, praying for quashing the entire proceedings initiated vide the show cause notice dated August 04, 2005. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with t....