Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (4) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case, the sale effected by the assessee is governed by the provisions contained in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the transaction value alone should be the basis for determining the central excise duty liability - the Adjudicating Authority concluded that the price of the raw materials purchased by the assessee are controlled by the Thomson India and, therefore, Thomson India indirectly supplied the inputs to the assessee through its sister concerns set out in the approved Vendors List at the price controlled / approved by the Thomson India - the prima facie view of the CESTAT that the Adjudicating Authority was justified in holding that Thomson India supplied the inputs to the assessee by persons authorized by Thomson India an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue of excisable goods sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of removal, provided the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration. In any other case, Section 4(1)(b) of the 1944 Act provides that the value of excisable goods shall be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. 4. Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 ('2000 Rules' for short) framed by the Central Government provides that where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a jobworker on behalf of a person (the principal manufacturer), then, in a case where the goods are sold by the manufacturer for delivery at the time of removal of goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral Excise Act, 1944. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT with an application seeking waiver of predeposit and by the impugned order, the CESTAT directed the assessee to make predeposit of ₹ 1 crore for entertaining the appeal. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed by the assessee. 7. Mr.Shridharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted firstly that in the present case, the sale effected by the assessee is governed by the provisions contained in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the transaction value alone should be the basis for determining the central excise duty liability. Secondly, Mr.Sridharan submitted that the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng was a manufacturing agreement for manufacture of settop boxes under Trademark of Thomson and the raw materials / parts of the settop boxes were required to be procured by the assessee from the vendors approved by the Thomson India as per the approved Vendor List. Under the said Memorandum of Understanding, the inputs requires in the manufacture of settop boxes were classified into three categories, namely Thomson Control Parts, Key Components and the Manufacture Control Parts. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed that the approved Vendor List contains the inputs required in the manufacture of set top boxes. From the statements of the Purchase Manager, Business Unit Manager, Operational Manager and the General Manager of the assessee, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent case, the specific finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority is that the inputs were supplied to the assessee through the persons approved by the principal manufacturer and that the prices of the inputs were controlled by the principal manufacturer. No such facts were there in the aforesaid cases. Moreover, in the case of Hyva (India) Private Limited, there was a specific finding recorded (though prima facie) by the CESTAT that Rule 10A of 2000 Rules has no application to the facts of that case. Thus, the aforesaid two decisions do not support the case of the assessee. 12. In these circumstances, the prima facie belief formed by the CESTAT that Rule 10A of 2000 Rules is applicable to the present case cannot be faulted. Accordi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates