9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1137 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - items cleared to sister unit - case of the Revenue is that the value of Central Excise duty should have been done under Rule 4 and not under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules 2000? - Held that - in the present case the goods were sold to independent buyers as well as cleared to sister unit. Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 were substituted vide N/N. 14/2013-CE (NT) dated 22.11.2013. The scope of the new Rule vis- -vis the old rule was explained in the Board Circular dated 25.11.2013. It was clarified that the new provision was introduced which clearly state their application irrespective of whether the whole or a part of clearances of manufactured goods are covered by the circumstances given in the said rule. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Valuation of goods transferred to sister unit under Central Excise duty - Applicability of Rule 4 vs. Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Valuation under Rule 4 vs. Rule 8: The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the valuation of goods transferred/sold by the respondents-assessee to their sister unit during 2009-2010. The Revenue contends that the valuation should have been done under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, instead of Rule 8. The crux of the argument is that Rule 8 applies only when the entire production of a commodity is captively consumed, which was not the case here. The original authority had dropped the demand for differential duty, upholding the valuation under Rule 8 adopted by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal noted that the goods were sold to independent buyers as well as cleared to the sister unit, leading to a key point of contention regarding the correct valuation method. 2. Interpretation of Valuation Rules: The Tribunal examined the contentions of both parties and referred to a previous decision in Ispat Industries vs. CCE, Raigad. The original authority's findings highlighted the respondent-assessee's compliance with Circular No. 634/34/2002-CX and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, based on the cost of production. The Tribunal noted that the valuation rules underwent a substitution in 2013, with the new Rule emphasizing its application irrespective of the extent of clearances covered. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal clarified that the rules do not mandate a sequential application but aim to determine the assessable value under different scenarios. 3. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeal: In light of the settled legal position and the consistent application of valuation principles, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authority's decision. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the valuation method adopted by the respondent-assessee was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the Valuation Rules and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the applicable provisions to determine excisable goods' duty value accurately.
|
