9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1143 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - related party transaction - Held that - the respondents were not clearing their entire production to the Gear Division of their own Company or to their sister concern M/s Sadhu Overseas - the respondents were also selling the goods (more than 65% their production) to independent buyers such as M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. etc. In this background, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Ispat Industries Vs. CCE, Raigad 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , wherein the Hon ble Tribunal held that The provision of rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of rule 4 will lead to a determination of value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
- Assessment of Central Excise duty under Section 4(1)(a) vs. Section 4(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Validity of special audit under Section 14 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Confirmation of demands, interest, and penalties by the adjudicating authority - Interpretation of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. CCE, Raigad - Compliance with the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh concerns the assessment of Central Excise duty under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as opposed to Section 4(b), regarding the sale of goods by the appellants to related parties and independent buyers. The Revenue contended that the goods should have been assessed under Section 4(b) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. A special audit was conducted under Section 14 A to ascertain the assessable value, leading to demands, interest, and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, which were later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the Tribunal's judgment in Ispat Industries case. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the appellants were not solely clearing their production to related parties but were also selling goods to independent buyers. Citing the Tribunal's decision in Ispat Industries case, the Tribunal held that Rule 8 of the Valuation rules would not apply when part of the production is cleared to independent buyers. It was further emphasized that Rule 4 should be preferred over Rule 8 for determining value consistently with the statutory provisions of Section 4. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding it in accordance with established legal principles. In light of the settled legal position and the interpretation of the Tribunal's judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment underscores the importance of applying valuation rules in a manner consistent with statutory provisions and established legal precedents to ensure fair and accurate assessment of Central Excise duty.
|
