TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron ore pellets falling under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ('CETA'). 2.1 The appellant has entered into an agreement with Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. dated 10.03.2009 for supply of gaseous oxygen and gaseous nitrogen. For making such supplies, it was agreed between the parties that Praxair would construct, own and operate facility (oxygen plant, nitrogen plant, storage facility, etc.) inside the Appellant's premises for production of such gases for exclusive supply to the appellant. 2.2 After operation of the facility for some time, the agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id reversal was also duly disclosed in the returns filed by the Appellant in the month of September 2014. 2.7 An audit was conducted by the Department wherein the fact of transfer of gas production plant to Raigarh unit was noticed. It was observed by the audit team that since the credit reversed was less than the duty leviable on the transaction value, hence, in terms of the proviso to Rule 3(5A) of the CCR, the amount to be paid by the Appellant on the inter-unit transfer of capital goods to the Raigarh Plant would be an amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. 2.8 Accordingly, duty to the tune of Rs. 4,26,42,000/- was worked out on the instant transaction applying the prevailing rate of excise duty on the date of cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been recorded in the books of accounts as sale merely for control purposes and is merely a book entry as there cannot be a sale between two units of the same legal entity. Hence, in absence of any transaction value in the instant case, demand of amount under proviso to Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, demanding duty on transaction value is legally untenable and the impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside. In this regard, he relies on the following case laws : (i) Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Mysore/Bangalore [2005 (192) E.L.T. 892 (Tri. - Bang.), affirmed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 62 (Kar.), wherein in context of Rule 7(1)(b) of CCR, it has been held that the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....har Unit-III) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Central GST, Ujjain [2021 (7) TMI 197 - CESTAT New Delhi]. 3.3 He, therefore, submits that the demand of duty confirmed is liable to be set aside and no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the short issue emerges in this case whether the demand of delay on the transaction value can be confirmed by invoking Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the transaction is merely an inter unit stock transfer and there is no transaction value in absence of any sale between the two units of the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction value. None of these aspects are present in the impugned transfer of old machine by appellants one unit to its another unit. The issue is no more resintegra as is apparent from the decision of CESTAT Bench, Allahabad in the case of CCE & ST, Ghaziabad vs. M/s. RSPL Ltd. The decision is announced in the appellant's own case and the Department's appeal has been dismissed by holding that the transfer of machine between two sister units is not a trading activity. It being merely a stock transfer of inputs interse sister units which cannot be categorized as sale. It has also been held in the said decision that for the said reasons even Rule 6(3) (b) of CCR 2004 is not applicable to such a transfer. From the invoice, it is also o....