2015 (10) TMI 2491 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty on the goods transferred to their sister units/ own units by adopting assessable value under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 on CAS 4 certificate - Held that - We find from the impugned order that Shri Yadagiri R. Avadhoot, Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory of the appellant Company, in his statement dated 24.02.2014 stated that they have cleared the goods to the independent buyers also they have transferred the goods on payment of duty to their sister units on the transaction value of the independent buyer. It is seen that the appellant also placed the decision of the Larger Bench before the adjudicating authority which is duly recorded in the adjudication order. But, the adjudicating authority had not given any finding on the facts and law of the case. So, it is difficult to proceed in the matter as there is no clarity in the findings of the adjudicating authority. We are of the considered view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. At this stage, the learned Advocate submits that the part of the demand is after the amendment of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and therefore, they are liable to pay duty after the amendment. As we are remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, he will consider the submission of the learned Advocate. In view of the above discussions, we set-aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the facts and law of the case including the decision of Tribunal in the appellants own case. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. Applications for early hearing are dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Applicability of transaction value vs. assessable value under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the applicant sought early hearing of appeals concerning the valuation of goods, specifically Polyester Oriented Yarn (POY), Polyester chips, and Fully Drawn Yarn (FDY) under Chapters 54 and 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute centered around the duty demand on goods transferred to sister units/own units, with the adjudicating authority applying assessable value under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 based on CAS 4 certificate. The appellant argued for determining value based on transaction value, citing a Tribunal decision in Ispat Industries Limited vs. CCE, Raigad. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the adjudicating authority's findings and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, considering the appellant's submission and the earlier Tribunal decision in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for clarity in the findings and directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering both facts and law in reaching a decision on the valuation of goods, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals by way of remand. The applications for early hearing were dismissed as infructuous, highlighting the need for a comprehensive reassessment by the adjudicating authority.