9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, the duty demands confirmed and the penalties imposed are given in the table below : Sr. No. Period SCN dated O-I-O dated O-in-A dated Demand (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) Appeal No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1.1 1-4-2001 to 31-10-2005 4-4-2006 No. 09- 10/MS/(09- 10)/commr/RGD/07-9 dated 9-5-2007 ----- 1,92,63,411/- 1,92,63,411/- E/1087/07 1.2 1-11-2005 to 30-6-2006 28-11-2006 11,33,434/- 11,33,434/- 2.1 1-7-2006 to 31-12-2006 6-7-2007 Raigad/ADC/05 to 06/08-2009 dated 29-8-2008 YDB/152/RGD/2009 dated 12-11-2009 14,82,048/- 5,00,000/- E/185/10 2.2 1-1-2007 to 30-6-2007 18-1-2008 9,53,640/- 3. 1-7-2007 to 31-12-2007 . 6-8-2008 Raigad/ADC/30/2008-09 dated 11-3-2009 YDB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated persons as defined in Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department was, therefore, of the view that the transaction prices on which the appellant has discharged the duty liability cannot be taken as assessable value and the assessable value needs to be re-determined in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The said rules provide for determination of value on the basis of cost of production and the assessable value as per the said Rule is 115%/110% of the cost of production. On this basis, based on the cost of production furnished by the appellant, the assessable values were reworked and duty demands were rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturers/suppliers. The question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the transaction price could be accepted or the consideration by way of surrender of licences should be quantified in monetary terms and treated as an additional consideration for the sale of goods. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the surrender of the advance licences in favour of the manufacturers/suppliers is an additional consideration that needs to be added to the transaction price to arrive at the assessable value and duty should be discharged accordingly. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, as per the decision of the Tribunal in the same case, such additional consideration was not required to be added. In view of the above position, the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the prices of similar goods sold by the appellant to independent buyers were taken as the basis and accordingly, the adjudicating authority reworked the duty demand. However, the appellants were not put to notice nor were they given any opportunity to make submissions in respect of revised ground taken by the adjudicating authority for determination of assessable value under Rule 4. It is also their contention that even while making the computation, the adjudicating authority has committed certain errors while choosing the prices under Rule 4. If the adjudicating authority had taken the prices at which the prices were sold to independent buyers prior to the removal of the goods in question, it could be seen that the prices declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions made by both the sides. 5.1 We observe that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, which has been invoked in the show cause notice for determination of value is not the appropriate rule, especially when the supplies made to the sister concerns formed only a small portion of total supplies effected by the appellant manufacturer. In Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-L.B.), a question arose before the Tribunal whether the assessable value in respect of goods which were transferred to another plant of the same assessee is required to be determined as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 or as per the Rule 8 of the said Rules, in a case where the same goods were also sold to independent buyers. The Larger Bench held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-determination of value. It is immaterial whether such value is prior to the removal of the impugned goods or after removal of the impugned goods. Only condition is that it should be nearest to the time of the removal of the goods for which duty is being demanded. Further, if such value needs adjustment for any reason (say) if the grade/quality is different or the quantum of sale is different, adjustments will have to be made from the value of such goods to determine the assessable value of the goods under clearance. If more than one price to independent buyer is available, the lowest of such price should be taken as the basis. Inasmuch as the appellant was not put to notice about the basis for determination and the same was done only as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
