Commissioner Of Central Excise vs United Phosphorus Ltd

[ Arising out of OIA-KLG/242/SRT-II/2007 dtd 11.7.2007 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Adjudication)-SURAT-II ]

Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Adjudication)-SURAT-II - Appellant(s)

Vs

United Phosphorus Ltd - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 23/6/2015

ORDER No. A/10955/2015 dtd 23.6.2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), where the adjudication order was set aside.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods under Chapter No 28, 29 and 38 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1985 and availed Cenvat Credit on input. During the period November 2002 to June 2003, the appellant cleared the input as such to their sister unit on payment of Central Excise duty equivalent to the amount of credit availed on such input. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Silvasa Machines vs Commissioner of central Excise, Vapi [2012(280) ELT. 140(Tri.Ahmd)] decided the issue in favour of the appellant, as under :

 8.?We find that the issue involved in this case is now res integra inasmuch as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra), (wherein I was also one of the member) has clearly reproduced C.B.E.&C. Circular No. 6/39/2000-CX.1, dated 1-7-2002, wherein the Board has laid down the guidelines for valuation of the goods/inputs which are removed as such from the factory. On perusal of the said circular which is reproduced in the said Larger Bench decision, it has been stated and held by the Larger Bench that the amount of Cenvat credit taken by the assessee, of the duty paid on the invoice value as shown in the invoice can be considered as correct assessable value and duty liability to be discharged. This would, in other words, would mean that the Cenvat credit of the Central Excise duty would be the correct amount which needs to be reversed when the inputs are removed as such to their own sister concerns, without any processing. Larger Bench decision will squarely cover the issue in this case.

3. In view of the above discussions and following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Silvasa Machines (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami ??

??

??

??

2