TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had stock-transferred lead oxide valued at Rs.5,75,10,051/- to their other unit M/s.TAFE, Power Source Division-II at Maraimalai Nagar during the period from September 2003 to March 2008; the Appellant had adopted their own method of cost construction and arrived at a value at 110% of such cost and did not follow the correct costing method i.e. CAS-4 for arriving at the assessable value of the goods stock-transferred. Revenue entertained a view that the Appellant had wilfully suppressed and adopted the cost of production by taking cost as per the cost construction statement from the previous years; that they had short-paid duty amounting to Rs.93,80,442/- by wilfully suppressing the fact regarding the cost of production statement of the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n many decided case law in their support; that the Appellant were paying duty on lead oxide based on the moving average price of lead of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. as the base price, as the basis of price of lead plus a cushioning margin for increased overheads and cost of labour as costing method. The whole supply of lead oxide was to its Battery unit there is no scope of taking excess CENVAT credit; that there is no suppression involved and therefore equal penalty is not legally invokable. It was submitted that in the Adjudication Order it is held that when the standardization has been done by way of CAS-4, the Appellant should have followed the CAS-4. It is submitted by Appellant that Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 prescribes that when th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of availing of CENVAT credit and the ultimate sale price of automotive batteries captures the cost of lead oxide adopted by them in their Unit No. I. Thus, the full commercial value / RSP attributable to the automotive batteries had been subjected to Central Excise duty resulting in no possibility of any undervaluation. 3.3 Insofar as the lead oxide being stock-transferred tom the Unit No.I to Unit II, the cost of lead predominates in value. Even in the final price of the batteries, the value of lead is significant. Lead is the basic raw material for the manufacture of lead oxide and they source their raw material in the form of ingots both indigenously and through imports. M/s.Hindustan Zinc Limited is the major producer of lead in In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he moving average price, the Appellant also provided due and sufficient provision to factor the cost escalation based on market conditions and determine the final price / value of lead and added other elements of cost on actuals. 3.8 Copies of Cost certificates for relevant period duly certified by the Cost Accountant filed before the authorities nowhere state that the said certificates were prepared based on the costing of any previous period. 3.9 The Adjudicating Authority has also not found fault with the Cost certificates produced but wrongly assumed that it has to be applied to the previous period which was not correct. The cost certificates represent the cost of the impugned goods for the period stated therein and not for any ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oducts Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai [2017 (352) ELT 375 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) Essar Steel India Ltd. CCE Raipur [2017 (345) ELT 139 (Tri.-Del.) (v) ITC Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai [2016 (333) ELT 287 (Tri.-LB) (vi) CCE Pune Vs Cadbury India Ltd. [2006 (200) ELT 353 (SC)] (vii) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-V [2018 (362) ELT 382 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (viii) Star Industries Vs CC (Imports), Raigar [2015 (324) ELT 656 (SC)] (ix) Pricol Ltd. Vs CCE Coimbatore [2018 (360 LET 161 (Tri.-Chennai)] (x) Sweet Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Aurangabad [2016 (334) ELT 164 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 5. We have considered the rival contentions carefully and also perused the documents placed before us, apart from ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r back to the file of Adjudicating authority for carrying out the exercise. 8. We find that the Appellant has also taken a ground as to invoking the extended period of limitation since the SCN dt. 30.09.2008 came to be issued proposing to recover the alleged differential duty for the period September 2003 to March 2008. In this regard, it is contended that since the subject goods were only captively consumed by the Appellant Unit No. II and the Appellant did pay the duty based on the cost of production plus profit margin as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 which facts were within the knowledge of the Revenue and hence, there was no suppression, much less suppression with an intent to evade duty and hence, the invocati....