2014 (8) TMI 914 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of predeposit - valuation under Rule 6(b) or Rule 8 - Supply a portion of the finished goods to their other units as well as in the market - appellant paid the duty on the inter-unit transfer on the comparable price which was rejected on the ground that comparable price is a contract price - Held that - Applicant has sold the same goods to the independent buyers during the relevant period and therefore it appears to be covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of duty, interpretation of Valuation Rules, applicability of Rule 8, determination of comparable price, stay of recovery during appeal.

Analysis:
The applicant sought waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to &8377; 12,34,678/- along with interest and penalty for the period from April 1998 to March 2002. The issue revolved around the demand of duty under Rule 6(b) of the old Valuation Rules for the period from 1.4.1998 to 30.6.2000 and under Rule 8 of the new Valuation Rules for the period from 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2002. The appellant had paid duty on inter-unit transfers based on a comparable price, which was rejected on the grounds that the comparable price was a contract price.

The applicant argued that the goods were sold to non-related buyers, which should be accepted as a comparable price. They contended that Rule 8 of the new Valuation Rules should not be invoked when there is a comparable price, citing precedents like the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad. The Tribunal in the Ispat Industries Ltd. case held that Rule 8 would not apply if some production is cleared to independent buyers. The applicant maintained that they supplied goods to independent buyers, supported by the decision in the Ispat Industries Ltd. case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant indeed sold the same goods to independent buyers during the relevant period, aligning with the decision in the Ispat Industries Ltd. case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier directed the applicant to predeposit the entire duty and penalty amount, which was later stayed by the Madras High Court. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to decide the appeal on merits without any predeposit. Consequently, the Tribunal granted waiver of predeposit for the entire dues and stayed the recovery during the appeal process, allowing the stay application.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the waiver of predeposit of duty, the interpretation and application of Valuation Rules, the determination of a comparable price, and the stay of recovery during the appeal, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant based on the findings related to the sale of goods to independent buyers and the procedural aspects of the case.