TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On an annual basis the appellant submits before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, under due acknowledgement, a copy of the "Annual Statistics", published on financial year basis, which consists of production and discharge summary, performance highlights, analysis of plant performance, despatch of iron and steel scrap etc. during the said financial year. The details of clearance of various steel scraps arising out of or during the course of manufacture of iron and steel products are also reflected in the said Annual Statistics. All the statutory returns and requisite documents has all along been duly submitted before the Departmental authorities. 2.3 In the course of manufacture of various iron and steel products viz. Billets, Blooms, TMT Bars etc. steel scraps like processed steel scraps, steel turning and borings, mould splashing, rejected wheels etc. are generated as a matter of course through the manufacture of the said iron and steel products. The said steel scraps are cleared upon payment of appropriate duty of excise by the appellant to external customers and are also cleared to its other sister units, including Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur ("ASP"), for further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act. 2.6 By a letter dated September 14, 2017, the appellant duly replied to the said show cause notice, denying the misconceived and patently erroneous allegations contained in the show cause notice against it and drawing the attention of the Joint Commissioner to the correct facts and law on the issue as well as the correct valuation principles, which conclusively established the correctness of the determination of the transaction value/assessable value by the appellant of the said goods and that there was no incorrect valuation and, consequently, no short payment of any central excise duty payable on the said goods and that the allegations to the contrary made in the show cause notice had no substance or merit whatsoever. The Joint Commissioner was, in the premises, requested to drop the misconceived proceedings initiated thereunder against the appellant. 2.7 The appellant also, through its representative, participated in the personal hearing granted to it by the Joint Commissioner and made submissions, inter alia, reiterating the statements and submissions made in its reply dated September 14, 2017. 2.8 However, on November 9, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Rules and not under Rule 8 thereof, even if the part of the said goods cleared to the sister units for further use in the manufacture of iron and steel products by the said units. As such the question of determining the transaction value of steel scraps cleared by the appellant to its sister units, including ASP, during the said period in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules on the basis of 110%/115% of their cost of production cannot and does not arise. Consequently, the duty payable upon the said steel scraps cleared to its sister units by the appellant during the said period had to be on the basis of the transaction value thereof as determined under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules on the price at which the said goods were sold to independent external customers. The appellant having followed the said principle, the Commissioner (Appeals) should be appreciated and erred in not doing so that there was no under valuation and consequently no short payment on duty of the steel scraps cleared to its sister unit by the appellant during the said period and hence the purported order of the Joint Commissioner was unsustainable in law. 3.2 It is submitted that the Commissioner (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit by its sister units [own unit as per the Commissioner (Appeals)]. Entire exercise was thus revenue neutral. In such cases, as per settled law, where duty paid by assessee is available to its sister unit as cenvat credit, there being no revenue implication, there can be no demand on the assessee of alleged short paid of central excise duty. In this regard, he relies on the following decisions - (i) (2025) 35 Centax 83 (Tri. Cal) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Indeos Abs Limited) (ii) 2010 (254) E.L.T. 628 (Guj.) (Commr. of C.Ex. & CUS, Vadodara-II Versus Indeos ABS Limited) (iii) 2011 (267) E.L.T. A155 (S.C.) (Commissioner V. Indeos ABS Ltd.) (iv) 2016 (339) E.L.T. 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Versus Commr. Of C. Ex, Ahmedanad-I) (v) 2013 (290) E.L.T. 538 (Guj) (Commissioner of C.Ex. & CUS, Surat-II -Versus- Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.) (vi) 2025 (11) TMI 1191 - Cestat Kolkata (M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi) (vii) 2026 (1) TMI 648 - CESTAT Kolkata (M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, G.S.T. and C.X., Rourkela)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legation of suppression of any material or wilful misstatement or contravention of any provision of the Act or the rules framed thereunder by an assessee to evade duty and, hence, the requirement of the Proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Act, for invocation thereof, cannot be said to have been satisfied. 3.7 It is further submitted that the condition precedent for invocation of Section 11AC of the Act and the Proviso to Section 11A(!) of the Act being the same, since the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the condition precedent for invocation of Section 11AC of the Act and imposing penalty thereunder upon the appellant is not satisfied in the instant case (and consequently set aside the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner) it was incumbent upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the condition precedent for invocation of the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act was also not satisfied and, consequently, the purported demand confirmed by the purported order of the Joint Commissioner was, for this reason also, illegal, invalid and bad. 3.8 He, therefore, submits that the extended period of limitation can not be invoked in situations of revenue neutrality. To support ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of CCE & C, Vadodara-II v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co.Ltd. [2012 (285) ELT 336 (Guj.)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under :- "11. In the present case, when the period of limitation had already expired and when the extended period beyond one year was not available to the department as held by the Commissioner himself in his order-in-original, to our mind the respondent was not liable to pay even the basic duty. But for the respondent voluntarily making payment of such duty short-paid, it was not open for the Department to recover the same under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. In absence of any such voluntary payment, recovery of the unpaid duty would not have been possible. In that view of the matter, we do not find the case would fall under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. Subsection (2B) of Section 11A of the Act applies in a case where there is voluntary payment of unpaid duty before issuance of show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 11A. When the provision refers to show cause notice, it means a show cause notice which could have been validly issued and surely not a notice which had become time-barre....