Case Details: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi-I (2025) 35 Centax 83 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri Deepro Sen & Ms Taniya Roy, Advs., for the Appellant.
- Shri P.K. Ghosh, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant cleared excisable goods to its sister unit on a stock transfer basis. The jurisdictional authority issued a demand of differential duty by applying Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and adopting 110% of the cost of production to be determined as per CAS-4, instead of the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant subsequently calculated duty based on CAS-4 by applying Rule 8 and deposited the amount, which the authority appropriated while confirming the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that any excess duty, if payable under Rule 8, would be available as Cenvat credit to the sister unit, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation, and relied upon the decision of the CESTAT in Hindalco Industries Ltd. [(2023) 8 Centax 302 (Tri.-Cal)]. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the demand of differential duty was unsustainable in view of the established principle of revenue neutrality. The Tribunal observed that where the goods were cleared to a sister unit and any duty paid by the appellant would be fully available as Cenvat credit to the receiving unit, the situation was revenue neutral and no motive to evade duty could be inferred. It applied Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 in conjunction with the factual position that the differential duty, if any, did not result in loss of revenue to the Department of Revenue. Relying on the precedent in Hindalco Industries Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the demand confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be sustained. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
List of Cases Cited
- Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2023) 8 Centax 302 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3, 7]
