2017 (1) TMI 842 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related party - assessable value in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 9 & 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that - Rule 9 of said Rule provides that when the assessee arranges sale of goods manufactured by them through a related person, then the value of goods for determination levy of duty is the price at which said related person sales the said goods. It clearly means that if the goods are cleared to a person who is consuming the same, then the provisions of Rule 9 are not applicable In the present case, show cause notices has invoked Rule 11 and for invoking Rule 11, it has taken assistance of provisions of Rules 8 & 9 of the said Rule. We find that neither the provisions of Rule 8 nor the provisions of Rule 9 are applicable in the present case. Therefore, the show cause notices are not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of related party transactions between companies and reassessment of assessable value.
2. Invoking Central Excise Valuation Rules for determining assessable value.
3. Appeal by Revenue challenging the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Interpretation of Rule 11 read with Rule 8 & 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules.

Analysis:

1. The case involved allegations of related party transactions between companies leading to the reassessment of assessable value. The show cause notices issued to three companies claimed that they were related to another company and demanded the re-determination of assessable value for goods cleared to the related company. The Adjudicating Authority held that the transactions did not fall under the purview of valuation rules and dropped the proceedings, prompting the Revenue to appeal.

2. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that the related party status was not adequately addressed. The Tribunal considered the show cause notices invoking Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, which allows for determining the value of goods using reasonable means consistent with the Act. Rule 8 applies when goods are not sold by the assessee, and Rule 9 pertains to goods sold through a related person. The Tribunal found that neither Rule 8 nor Rule 9 was applicable in the present case, rendering the show cause notices unsustainable.

3. The Tribunal examined the contentions of both parties and reviewed the show cause notices in detail. It noted that all three notices were similarly worded and analyzed the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal determined that since the provisions of Rule 8 and Rule 9 were not applicable to the transactions in question, the show cause notices were not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue.

4. In a comprehensive analysis, the Tribunal delved into the specifics of Rule 11 read with Rule 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules to determine the validity of the show cause notices. By interpreting the rules and finding them inapplicable to the transactions under scrutiny, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the relevant provisions when assessing the assessable value in cases involving related party transactions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.