IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.1 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.127/DGP-II/CT(Audit-II)/2018-19 dated

24.04.2018 passed by Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata)

M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. (U-III)

(Banskopa, Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan, West Bengal-713212)

Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur (Nanoor Chandidas Road, SAIN, Dist.Birbhum, Bolpur-731204)

(Pertaining to Durgapur Commissionerate)

Respondent APPERANCE :

None for the Appellant Shri P.Das, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.75110/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 20 JANUARY 2026 DATE OF DECISION : 20 JANUARY 2026 Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed along with equivalent amount of penalty under the provision of Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of iron & steel products of different grade/varieties falling under Chapter No.72 of the 1 Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2.1 A show-cause notice dated 09.05.2011 was issued to the appellant on the allegation that the appellant has cleared/transferred the commodity namely, Pig Iron, M.S. Billet, Non-Alloy Billet, Alloy Bloom, Non-Alloy Bloom, Scrap & Ferro Waste Scrap from their factory to their sister/inter units at a lower rate, whereas sold the identical / similar goods to the independent buyers at a higher rate, resulting in short payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.3,01,036/- during the period from April 2010 to September 2010, thus allegedly contraventing the provisions contained in Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) 2002/Rules 2000 and Rules

4, 6 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2.2 The matter was adjudicated. The demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed along with equivalent amount of penalty.

2.3 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. Considering the facts that the issue involved in this appeal, lies in a narrow compass, therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

4. The short issue involved in this case is as to whether the clearances made by the appellant to its own units for captive consumption is to be valued in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or on the basis of the price, on which, the sales are made to independent third party buyers in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) 2002 read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

5. The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela vide Final Order No.75043/2026 dated 09.01.2026, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under :

“Issue No. (1): Whether the appellant is correct in following Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules for arriving at the value in respect of clearances of goods to their own units at Angul and Raigarh, when most of the quantity of such goods manufactured by them is cleared to their own units and part of the quantity is cleared to third-party buyers, or not:

9. We find that the Ld. Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has heavily relied on the decision in the case of AquamallWater Solutions Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore [2003 (153) E.L.T. 428 (Tri. – Bang.)] to say that the valuation is required to be done on the basis of the price at which goods were sold to third-party buyers, wherein, admittedly, M/s. Aquamall was selling goods to a related person i.e., M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., and also to independent buyers and all such sales were made from depo