9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to GISCO) in Appeal No.E/A/350/08. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant, M/s. GEL are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 7206 10 90(7204.90) of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said manufactured goods were cleared to their related Company, M/s. GISCO for captive consumption in the manufacture of MS Bars. A Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. GEL alleging short payment of duty due to under-valuation of goods cleared to their related company viz. M/s. GISCO. It is alleged that the clearance to related company was a removal of goods for consumption by them. Therefore, the assessable value ought to have been determined under Section 4(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. GISCO. He has submitted that the price at which the goods were sold to the independent customers and the price at which the goods were cleared to M/s. GISCO, were almost same in majority cases and sometimes higher and they had never cleared the goods to M/s. GISCO at a price lower than the selling price at which such goods were sold to the outside independent customers. He has submitted that the principle of law governing determination of value of goods cleared for captive consumption to a related unit or to own unit, when similar goods are also sold to independent buyers, is no more res integra and the issue has been settled by the Hon ble Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad reported 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the independent buyers, had been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd.(supra). Precisely, the issue referred to the Larger Bench was - whether the assessable value in respect of the plant which are transferred to another plant of the same assessee is required to be determined as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 (as claimed by the appellant), or as per Rule 8 of the said rules (as claimed by the Revenue), in a case where the same goods are also sold to independent buyers? After detailed discussion of case laws on the subject, the question was answered by the Larger Bench at para 9 of the Order, which reads as follows:- 9. In view of what we have observed above, we answer the refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
