2017 (10) TMI 8 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related party transaction - Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - Held that - It is not disputed that M/s. Kunal Loha Chem and M/s. Sona Wires are interconnected undertakings - Even though the two buyers are interconnected undertakings as per section 4(3)(b)(i) of Central Excise Act, merely because they are interconnected undertakings, the transaction value cannot be rejected - There is no justification for rejecting the lower transaction values to related buyers and re-determination of value by costing method - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods sold to related parties under Central Excise Valuation Rules

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing GI Wire/ HB wire, sold products to related parties at lower prices than to unrelated buyers. The department issued a show cause notice for differential duty based on Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, proposing to value clearances to related parties using CAS 4 standard costing plus a notional profit. The original and appellate authorities confirmed the duty demand. The appellant challenged this valuation method, arguing for Rule 10(b) transaction value and citing a favorable Tribunal decision in a similar case.

The appellant contended that there was no legal basis to value goods sold to related parties based on costing, as the related companies were independent entities with no evidence of mutual interest. The appellant relied on Rule 10(b) for transaction value and referenced a Tribunal decision supporting their position. The Revenue argued that the customers were interconnected undertakings under section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act, justifying a redetermination of value.

The Tribunal noted that the buyers were indeed interconnected undertakings, but mere interconnectedness did not warrant rejecting transaction value. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that unless the units had mutual interest in each other's business, transaction value should be accepted. Additionally, since goods were also sold to independent buyers, section 4(1)(a) applied, allowing acceptance of lower transaction values for related buyers.

Referring to a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal reiterated that transaction value should be accepted unless mutual interest in business existed between manufacturer and buyers. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 9 of Valuation Rules applied only when goods were sold to related persons in specific manners outlined in the law. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification to reject lower transaction values to related buyers and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.