Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-Ii on 20 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/55588/2014-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. JNK-EXCUS-000-APP-114-14-15 dated 05.08.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals) Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-II Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B.L. Narsimhan (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. G. R. Singh (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 20.11.2015 Final Order No. 54220 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs, falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had transferred their final product to the sister unit on payment of duty under Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2002. Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessable value was on the lower side and the appeallant paid the differential duty voluntarily. The SCN dated 11.04.2013 was issue proposing demand or interest of Rs. 2,87,178/- and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the original authority to re-quantify the demand of interest as per the observation therein and set aside the penalty.
2. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd., 2009 (239) ELT 385 (S.C.). I find that it is a inter-unit transfer of goods. The Tribunal in the case of Paper Products Ltd. vs CCE, Vapi, 2013 (292) ELT 389 (Tri.Amd.) and Reliance Industries Ltd. vs CCE Rajkot 2013 (292) ELT 378 (Tri. Amd), after considering the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of SKF (India) (supra) and following the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers CO. Ltd., 2012 (285) ELT 336 (Guj.) held that interest liability did not arise in view of no dispute regarding availment of cenvat credit by the sister unit and payment of differential duty by the assessee before issuance of the SCN. There is no malafide attached to the under-valuation. I am of the view that the said decisions are applicable in the present case.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Operative Part pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 2 | Page E/55588/2014-Ex[SM}