2016 (3) TMI 523 - AT - Central Excise

Value for the excisable goods partly cleared to the sister unit/partnership firm - whether to be determined as per Rule 8 or as per transaction value under Section 4(1) (a) of CER? - Held that - Provisions of Rule 8 will not apply where the goods were partly cleared to independent buyer and also held that rule 4 is to be preferred over rule 8. This Tribunal in the case of Gangotri Electrocastings Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Patna (2012 (7) TMI 321 - CESTAT, KOLKATA ) has held that clearances to related person, value should be on the basis of sales of same goods cleared to independent customers as per rule 4. The ratio of Tribunal s LB in Ispat Industries (2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) and the above Tribunal decision in Gangotri Electrocastings (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Further, we find that the Adjudicating Authority in his order No.200/2013 dt.28.11.13 has allowed the appeal of assessee for the subsequent period for 2003 to 7.7.2004, and held that Rule 8 is not applicable.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal involving demand of duty
- Consequential refund arising from Original Order

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals with identical issues - one concerning the demand of duty and the other related to a refund claim arising from an Original Order. The appellants, manufacturers of cotton yarn, had cleared finished goods to their own partnership firms and unrelated buyers. The adjudicating authority dropped the recovery of differential duty, leading to a refund claim by the appellants. However, the Revenue appealed against these orders, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) setting them aside and allowing the Revenue's appeals, prompting the appellants to file the two appeals in question.

2. The advocate for the appellants argued that the Director's partnership with another firm did not establish relatedness as per the Customs Act. She highlighted that goods were cleared at different prices to partnership firms and unrelated buyers, presenting evidence such as invoices and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a subsequent case. The advocate also contended that the demand was time-barred, citing an audit report from 2001 that found no valuation discrepancies.

3. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the findings of the impugned orders, emphasizing mutuality of interest. Referring to Board circulars, he argued for valuation based on the cost of production under Rule 8. He distinguished the case laws cited by the advocate, asserting their inapplicability to the present case.

4. In the Tribunal's analysis, the key issue was whether the value of goods cleared to a sister unit/partnership firm should be determined under Rule 8 or transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) had favored Rule 8 based on a Board circular, while the adjudicating authority considered the goods' clearance to related parties. Citing relevant Board circulars and judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of transaction value for goods partly sold, emphasizing the applicability of Rule 4 over Rule 8 in such scenarios.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the Original Orders, allowing both appeals in favor of the appellants based on the valuation principles discussed and the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.