9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 821 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Undervaluation - MRP based valuation of ceramic tiles - Demand of differential duty - Held that - on the identical issue, the Tribunal by Final Order 2014 (12) TMI 1132 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed the appeals filed by the Appellants-Assessees and rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. Following the order of this Tribunal, dt.24.09.2014, the appeals filed by Appellants-Assessees to that extent are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue to that extent are rejected. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Valuation dispute in relation to the applicability of Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944 pre and post 1.3.2008.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the Revenue and the assessees filed applications related to a valuation dispute. The appeals were inadvertently not incorporated in a previous final order dated 24.09.2014. Both sides admitted that the appeals are related to a valuation dispute. The Tribunal, in a batch appeals final order dated 24.09.2014, held that for the period prior to 1.3.2008, the provisions of Section 4A would be applicable, and as there were no prescribed valuation rules under this section, the MRP/RSP could not be re-determined. For the period post 1.3.2008, the value needed to be re-determined as per the prescribed valuation rules under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944. The matter was remanded back to the lower authorities to follow the direction given by the Tribunal in a previous case. The appeals filed by the appellant-assessees were allowed to that extent, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected. On the identical issue, the Tribunal, in another final order dated 24.09.2014, allowed the appeals filed by the Appellants-Assessees and rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. Following this order, the appeals filed by the Appellants-Assessees were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected. The applications filed by the applicants-assessees and the Revenue were disposed of accordingly. The judgment clarifies the application of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944 in a valuation dispute both pre and post 1.3.2008, providing guidance on how the valuation rules under this section should be implemented based on previous Tribunal decisions.
|
