2008 (12) TMI 628 - AT - Central Excise

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person - Applicants have prima facie established that they sold goods not only to related persons but also to independent buyers at the same price

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Related party transactions under Section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
4. Distinction between previous Tribunal orders and present case.
5. Interpretation of Rule 8 in light of sales to independent buyers.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs. 11,54,234 imposed on the first applicant company and other individuals. The Department contended that the first applicant company and another entity were related persons under Section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act, necessitating excise duty payment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, the applicants demonstrated that they sold goods to both related and independent buyers at the same price, supported by sales data for different years. The Tribunal noted a distinction from previous cases where sales were only to related parties, emphasizing the sale to independent buyers as a significant factor. Citing the decision in Ispat Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal held that Rule 8 applies when the entire production is captively consumed, and since part of the production was sold to independent buyers in this case, a strong case for waiver was established. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit and stayed recovery pending appeals.

This judgment addresses the issue of related party transactions under the Central Excise Act and the application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. It underscores the importance of sales to independent buyers in distinguishing cases and interpreting the rule. The decision provides clarity on the conditions for Rule 8's applicability based on the nature of sales and production consumption, aligning with precedent and legal principles.