9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 131 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - manufacture of multi layer Printed Plastic Film and cleared to various District Co-operative Milk Producers Union (DCMPU for short) and also to the associated members affiliated to Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited - whether price at which the goods were sold to DCMPU is not normal transaction value where the price is sole consideration? - applicability of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. HELD THAT - In the appellant s own case, in the transaction with the same buyers DCMPU, the issue has been decided vide order dated 08.09.2022 in 2022 (9) TMI 430 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that there are no evidence to hold that the appellant and the dairies are related in terms of Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. It is observed that in the same set of facts between the same parties, this Tribunal has held that the seller (appellant) and the buyers are not related in terms of Section 4. Hence, the price at which the goods were sold is the transaction value in terms of Section 4. The issue is settled in favour of the appellant - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the appellant and the District Co-operative Milk Producers Union (DCMPU) are "related persons" under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. 2. Applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 3. Validity of the differential duty demand confirmed by the Revenue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of whether the appellant and the DCMPU are "related persons" under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act: The primary contention of the Revenue was that the appellant and the DCMPU are interconnected undertakings, thus making them "related persons" as per Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue relied on various bylaws and the organizational structure of the co-operatives to assert this relationship. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "related" persons under Section 4(3)(b), which includes inter-connected undertakings, relatives, and entities with mutual business interests. The Tribunal also examined the relevant rules (Rules 8, 9, and 10) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules and a CBEC Circular, which clarified that interconnected undertakings are considered related only if they meet specific criteria under Clauses (ii), (iii), or (iv) of Section 4(3)(b). The Tribunal found that the impugned order focused on the control GCMMF had over the appellant and the dairies but failed to provide evidence of mutual control or interest between the appellant and the dairies. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., where it was held that merely having control by one entity over another does not suffice to establish them as related persons unless there is mutual business interest. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant and the dairies did not have mutual control or interest, thus they are not related persons under Section 4(3)(b). 2. Applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000: The Revenue contended that the value of the goods should be determined under Rule 8, which applies when goods are not sold but used for consumption in production or manufacture. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 8 is not applicable in this case as the goods were sold to the DCMPU, and the transaction value should be considered. 3. Validity of the differential duty demand confirmed by the Revenue: Given that the Tribunal found the appellant and the DCMPU were not related persons, it held that the transaction value at which the goods were sold should be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the differential duty demand confirmed by the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant and the DCMPU are not related persons under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the transaction value at which the goods were sold is valid, and the differential duty demand is not justified. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
|
