9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable and value could be determined by the assessee under Rule 4 of the Valuation i.e., transaction value. It has been held that the provision of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the consequential of the valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the Rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will be allowed to determine value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944. In the present case, there is no dispute that during the period 2003-04 to 2005-06 the appellant transferred the goods to their sister unit as well as to the independent buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of ₹ 14,00,831/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty on the appellant company. 2. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that during the period 2001-02 and 2002-03, they had not any independent sale and therefore, they are liable to pay duty under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rule 2000 read with CAS-4. He further submits that the remaining periods i.e., 2003-04 to 2005-06 there was sale of independent buyer to the extent 3% in 2003-03 and 30% in respect of the other two years. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s Ispat Industries Ltd Vs CCE Raighad - 2007.209. ELT. 185. (Tri.LB). He further submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s A K Roy and Another vs Voltas Ltd - 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of M/s Ispat Industries Ltd (supra) held that transfer part of production to another plant of same assessee and balance production sold to independent buyers, Rule 8 could not be applicable and value could be determined by the assessee under Rule 4 of the Valuation i.e., transaction value. It has been held that the provision of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the consequential of the valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the Rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will be allowed to determine value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholesale sales. The quantum of goods sold by a manufacturer on wholesale basis is entirely irrelevant. There are facts that such sales may be few or scanty does not alter the true position. 5. In view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s A K Roy and Another (supra) the contention of the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue cannot be accepted. In our considered view, the appellant rightly paid duty on transaction value for the period 2003-04 to 2005-06 and the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty cannot be sustained. 6. The demand of duty for the period 2001-02 and 2002-03, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that they are liable to pay duty under Rule 8 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
