Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Precision Fasteners Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appeal No. E/249/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AT/704/RED/2006 dated 17.11.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) ================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Precision Fasteners Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad Respondent Appearance:
None for appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 03.08.2016 Date of Decision: 03.08.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AT/704/RED/2006 dated 17.11.2006.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. This matter came up for disposal before the Bench on 08.10.2015, 23.12.15 and 25.05.16 and all the occasions the appellant was not represented. Since the matter is of 2007 and notice has been served through the office of the Commissioner(A.R.), which was served by pasting the same on the last known address of the appellant, we take up the appeal for disposal.
4. Heard the learned D.R. and perused the records.
5. The issue involved in this case is regarding the valuation of the products supplied by appellant to their sister concern during the period July 2000 to July 2001. The appellant had discharged the duty liability on the said goods by calculating only the cost of production but did not arrive at the value as per provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The reason adopted by the appellant before the lower authorities is that during the period in question they were incurring a loss which was 5.87% hence value of 110% or 115% of the cost of production was incorrect to be applied in their case.
6. We find that the appellants contention before us in the Grounds of Appeal is also similar. In our considered view, the appellant has mis-read the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The said Rule specifically mandates for discharge of Central Excise duty on the cost of production @ 110% or 115% if the goods are cleared for captive consumption within the factory or to sister concern. Appellant had undisputedly paid the duty on the value by arriving at the landed cost of inputs. In our considered view the appellant being in Organised Sector, should have known the law as it was enacted, hence the plea for leniency for setting aside the penalty is also rejected. In short the impugned order is upheld in totality and the appeal is rejected.
(operative portion pronounced in Court) (Devender Singh) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk 1 3 Appeal No. E/249/07